Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Margaret Beryl Jones, having been created Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, of Whitchurch in the County of South Glamorgan, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Sawyer and the Baroness Prosser.

Lord Bradley

Keith John Charles Bradley, Esquire, having been created Baron Bradley, of Withington in the County of Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Sheldon and the Baroness Taylor of Bolton.

Privacy: Pervasive Computing

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will introduce legislation to protect privacy in response to the growth of pervasive computing.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are already in place regulations to protect privacy in the electronic communications field. The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 and the Data Protection Act 1998 implement the relevant EC directives in this respect. The Government will keep this legislation under review as the use of technology develops over time.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that he will know that 8 billion embedded microprocessors are produced each year, which is an alarming number. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology states in its POST note that it is important that the volume of transmitted data should be kept to a minimum, that transmissions should be encrypted and sent anonymously without reference to the owner and that security should be treated as ongoing. The Minister has said that security will be treated as ongoing. Evidently, there is some concern about whether manufacturers should be encouraged to build in safeguards from the very earliest stage. Will the Minister comment on that?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not know whether trying to keep the amount of information to a minimum is a realistic strategy. This will clearly be a huge and developing trend in the future; now that microprocessors have in-built communications, this will be a growing field. The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations were introduced to address just these questions. They require, for example, a system of consents for processing location-based data. Service providers are required to take appropriate technical and organisational measures to safeguard the security of services. For the moment, that seems to be appropriate legislation but, as I said, we will need to keep it under review as the technology develops.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, what is Her Majesty's Government's view on the report of the Leeds NHS trust, which stated that there were 70,000 instances of illegal access to patient data in one month?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, patient data would be covered by the Data Protection Act. Clearly, if there is that number of instances of illegal access to data, there is something wrong with the systems in that place. That should be taken up in the light of the Data Protection Act.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British Computer Society has appointed an expert committee to look into the implications of pervasive computing? If any legislative changes are required, it would be sensible to wait until that committee had reported. On medical applications, does the Minister agree that the use of devices for sending data from within a patient's body to outside recorders has proved to be an enormously valuable diagnostic tool, with no privacy implications for the patients?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we must wait and see how the technology develops before we rush into any kind of regulation to control it. There have, as yet, been no complaints to the Information Commissioner on this area of location-based services. Information taken out of people's bodies by such technology can clearly be enormously helpful medically.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the issue is as much about ownership of the huge amount of data routinely collected about all of us as it is about privacy? If so, what stance do the Government take on the questionable legality of the Home Office authorising the DNA database to be used by the Forensic Science Service to research whether race and ethnicity can be determined from DNA samples?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Question was about pervasive computing, which is a specific area. The whole area of data protection is covered by the Data Protection Act 1998. Pervasive computing is a completely different subject.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that there is—according to this POST note, for example—debate about whether the Data Protection Act covers the matter? The National Consumer Council is concerned about whether people could have all their information transmitted from, say, their home—or even their body, as was described in relation to medical things—and not know that it was being obtained or what use it was likely to be put to. That could be a bad use.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, there are two pieces of legislation: the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations. The second obviously covers the security of data communication from one place to another. As I said, that involves issues of consent and security, which are well covered in that legislation. Of course, it may turn out that the legislation does not properly cover the subject and that there are issues to be considered. As I said, however, there have been no complaints on that point as yet.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the Minister explain what pervasive computing is?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords. This is an interesting subject. Some microprocessors now have in-built communication facilities. The most obvious example of that is radio identification. I do not suppose that the noble Lord ever goes to the back of his local supermarket, but if he did he would see that packages that are brought in have an identification code that can be read electronically without taking the goods off the pallet. That is done by radio communication and is an enormous step forward in efficiency. The same principle applies to smart keys; one can open a car door from a range of three feet with a smart key, using the same technology.

Fuel Duty: Northern Ireland

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the advantages and disadvantages of harmonising the rates of road fuel tax and duty between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the introduction of regional fuel duty rates would represent a departure from the principle of uniform duty rates across the UK. Furthermore, it would also create a new control problem of ensuring that Northern Ireland duty-paid fuel was not used in Great Britain.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. HMRC is doing a sterling job in combating fuel fraud in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK. Would not my suggestion of requiring all HGVs leaving Great Britain to leave with a nearly full tank of fuel, coupled with the harmonisation of the rate of fuel tax between the north and the south of Ireland, stem the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds of Treasury revenue and disrupt the activities of some very unsavoury characters?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the Government take seriously the problem of oil frauds in Northern Ireland and have taken strides to deal with that. Matters are improving, as the noble Earl has acknowledged. I am aware that he has pursued the suggestion of vehicles having to fill up when they leave Great Britain, but the Government's position on that is still the same: we think that is likely to be regarded as contrary to the EU treaty concerning quantitative restrictions on imports and exports and, in any event, would cause considerable practical difficulties such as the delay caused to vehicles leaving the country and the Customs resources needed to apply it.

Lord Newby: My Lords, could the Minister give us some idea of the scale of the fraud to which the noble Earl has referred? Given that it is significant, what discussions are under way with the Government of the Republic of Ireland to try to minimise it?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the estimates of non-UK duty-paid consumption for Northern Ireland are based on the total situation, rather than on just the illicit market, so they do not distinguish between cross-border shopping and illicit activity. The latest figure that I have for the amount of lost duty is £245 million for 2004. A considerable amount of activity has been undertaken, resulting in the dismantling of 76 laundering plants, the disruption of 17 criminal gangs, 25 convictions for oil frauds and the seizure of more than 9.94 million litres of fuel and 4,285 vehicles from oil fraudsters.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, from his base in the Treasury, is the Minister aware that already most of the fuel pumps in Northern Ireland located within10 or 20 miles of the border have closed down? Ina sense, it is too late to act. However, would harmonising duties be of considerable benefit to the rest of the economy of Northern Ireland?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, we have to have uniform duties throughout the UK. I think that that is the right approach. Once we start having a regional basis for duties for fuel oil, what else will follow from that? On dealing with fraud, I have outlined the figures and the action that the Government have taken that is improving the situation.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, is this not a general problem caused by the fact that the Irish Government have been reducing the overall burden of tax, resulting in increased revenues and growth in its economy, while this Government have increased the burden of tax? The problem is not only that fuel suppliers are closing on the border; we now see inward investment going into Ireland rather than coming here because of the burden of tax that has been imposed by the current Government.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I admire the noble Lord's ingenuity in broadening the question in that way. As he knows, on the overall competitive position of the UK in comparison with other countries in Europe and worldwide, the UK stands strong. In 2005, we were at the top of the world league for foreign inward investment. That is testament to the policies that the Government are pursuing.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, is not the position of Northern Ireland rather different from the rest of the UK because it has a land border with another EU country? As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, it is a tremendous disadvantage to Northern Ireland if that is not considered by the Government in the light of taxation and other fiscal arrangements in the south. Is there any expectation that the Government will look at the problem, particularly in relation to the level of corporation tax?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, huge problems would be associated with having a separate corporation tax regime for Northern Ireland, such as how to compute the profits that fell within Northern Ireland for companies that operated generally in the UK. Tremendous problems would be associated with that and other levies that might be pursued on the same basis. It would not be the right way forward.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I live within 15 miles of the Irish border, and I can assure the House that all petrol stations are open there. Is the Minister aware that most people in Northern Ireland are suspicious of those who campaign for uniform taxation systems in the island of Ireland and suspect that there is another agenda? Will he confirm that, if we reduced either fuel tax or corporation tax in Northern Ireland, the central Exchequer would have less income from Northern Ireland and would logically then transfer less to the devolved administration for public expenditure on schools, housing and infrastructure?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, reduced fuel duty rates for Northern Ireland and reduced corporation tax are not on the Government's agenda, so we do not need to address that issue. Starting to look at those things on a regional basis would genuinely raise the issues that the noble Lord has identified. However, it is not on the Government's agenda.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, have the Government made a comprehensive assessment of what organisations are behind the smuggling of fuel into Northern Ireland?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, there a lot of activity. I outlined earlier the results of the activity that Customs was pursuing. The dismantling of laundering plants and the disruption of criminal gangs are evidence of the efforts that the Government have made and will continue to make, which are improving the situation. The number of deliveries into Ireland has increased, which shows that some of the illicit activity and cross-border shopping is diminishing.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, do the Government understand that we are raising our taxes and the Irish are lowering their taxes in this instance as a function of the Kyoto protocol, under which our obligations were raised and those of the Irish were lowered? Since Northern Ireland is living under purely Irish conditions, people there are a little surprised that they are penalised in that way.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I do not accept that Northern Ireland is being penalised in a particular way, but the noble Lord is right that the rates of fuel duty are an important part of the UK as a whole meeting its Kyoto obligations. It is important that we do that.

Visit Britain: Chairman

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made towards the appointment of a new chairman for VisitBritain.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, because of the importance of the post, further applications are being sought from suitably qualified candidates to supplement those already received, following advertisement of the vacancy in the national press. Our objective is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport should make the appointment this autumn.

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, I realise that the Minister is somewhat removed from this particular situation—I say that in the nicest way—but does he accept that the chairmanship of VisitBritain should be a much coveted position that involves leadership of our tourism sector at home, relations with the Government, the media, the RDAs and Scottish and Welsh tourism, and a huge ambassadorial role overseas, especially with the build-up to the Olympics? The idea that it is a two-day-a-week position—or even less, as is apparently now suggested by the Government—is ludicrous and an insult to the industry. Seemingly, there is not even a peerage at the end of that role. I believe that the chairmanship should be a near full-time position that is paid appropriately and sufficiently to attract a high-calibre individual who is capable of carrying our national tourism banner with professionalism, authority and energy.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the remuneration that is on offer and the time required should attract good candidates, and we expect it to do so. I hear what the noble Lord says about the need for a full-time appointment. That is not the view of the Government, nor do I think that it is the general view of the tourist industry, except that, by definition, it would hope for the maximum time possible. This post has been filled in the past as a part-time appointment. It is important and requires leadership. That is why we want good candidates to come forward and that is why we have extended the timescale to make sure that we do have good applications.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Lee, was Minister for tourism in another place? I followed him into that position, whereupon he promptly defected to the Lib Dems. I am not sure whether that is connected. However, I find myself again agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Lee. Is it not the case that the industry, which is worth £14 billion a year to the economy, should have an important person leading it? To cut the number of days a month for the job from eight to six is disgraceful.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the potted biography that the noble Viscount presented. I was aware of the credentials of the noble Lord, Lord Lee. We have reduced the time because we want the highest calibre of appointment. It is a part-time post; nothing comparable to it has ever been a full-time post. We expect a contribution to be made from someone who is working professionally the rest of the time in a high-level occupation but who can bring those skills to bear on this responsibility. We have no doubt that just as in the past VisitBritain has been served well at senior level, it will be in the future.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in light of the overstretched transport and other facilities in London, more should be done by all the organisations concerned to ensure that visitors from abroad go to all sorts of other places in the United Kingdom apart from the capital?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is certainly the case. It is part of the requirement for the post that the chairman succeeds in identifying the other attractions of Britain apart from London, but we face the obvious fact that a very high percentage of visitors to Britain come to London because it is one of the greatest tourist centres in the world.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is not the lack of attention paid by the DCMS over the chairmanship of VisitBritain entirely consistent with the approach taken by other parts of Government? The Minister will of course remember the letter from the Prime Minister to the Secretary of State in May which set out seven challenges for the DCMS—the 2012 Olympics, the BBC charter, digital switchover and so it goes on, with not a single mention of tourism. How can the Minister explain that, when tourism accounts for some 6.5 per cent of gross domestic product?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, if the noble Lord is about to list the achievements of the Government I offer him every encouragement, but, in addition to winning the Olympic Games, there is the success of tourism. He may not have noticed—the House will have done—that tourism increased by 9 per cent last year in this country, and its value by 8 per cent. It is a growth industry because we have increasingly attractive provision for overseas tourists. Noble Lords opposite may suggest a picture of gloom, but this, far from it, is a picture of undoubted success under a Labour Administration.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, what is the salary proposed for the new chairman?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the salary is £45,155 per year for around six days per month. That should attract high-level candidates.

Kenya: War Office Files

Lord Steel of Aikwood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they declined to release the full 1953 War Office files on Kenya for a radio documentary broadcast on 10 July and in answer to concurrent requests from the Government of Kenya.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the great majority of the 1953 War Office material on Kenya is available to the public at the National Archives. The exception is 11 pages withheld under the Freedom of Information Act, detailing statements by three Kenyan women raped by African soldiers. That information is sensitive personal data relating to the victims. The Government have no knowledge of a request from the Government of Kenya for that material.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is she aware thatthe Kenya National Archives demonstrate clearly that the 20 people killed in June 1953 were not Mau Mau members but members of the Meru home guard and were killed by a troop under the command of a British officer? Is it not extraordinary that, 50 years later, the full story has not come out and no one has been prosecuted? Under what section of the Freedom of Information Act has the request been refused?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the answer is Sections 40 and 41. The rest of that 1953 file, with which the noble Lord will be familiar, has a great deal of information about the events of the summer of that year.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that compensation of 2,000 shillings was paid to the next of kin of the 22 individuals slaughtered in the massacre that is the subject of the Question? Does that not indicate that the Government at the time accepted responsibility for the murder? Why was no one prosecuted? Does she acknowledge that a bargain may have been struck with the two junior officers present that they would testify against Major Griffiths in respect of another murder, for which he was convicted and sentenced to seven years, if they were not to be prosecuted for this crime? Is that satisfactory, or should not the whole of the evidence be in the public domain so that people could form a judgment of what happened?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, with the exception of the testimony of the women that I referred to in my Answer, evidence of the activities that occurred in that violent summer is very much in the public domain. There will be records for the courts martial and hearings that took place that are incomplete but would be available to the public if they could be found. With incomplete records, I am not in a position to make a judgment on any of those hearings or courts martial over 50 years on.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I give notice of a Statement later today. With the leave of the House, we shall take a Statement on the G8 meeting. It will be delivered by my noble friend the Leader of the House. We shall take it at a convenient time after four o'clock.

National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2006

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5 June be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee] [Considered in Grand Committee on 4 July].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Corporation (Delegation) etc. Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

Education and Inspections Bill

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The LORD SPEAKER in the Chair.]
	Clause 7 [Invitation for proposals for establishment of new schools]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 58:
	Page 7, line 3, after second "a" insert "reasonable"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to AmendmentsNos. 59, 60, 61, 121A, 125A, 125B, 125BA, 125C, 125D and 182. This set of 10 amendments aims, on the one hand, to probe the process of competition for the setting up of trust schools, asking in particular what kinds of bodies the Government are looking for as sponsors for such schools and, on the other, to put forward the notion of the community-sponsored trust—or, as we have called it, the "community foundation"—as an alternative to a private sector sponsor. Finally, Amendment No. 182 probes the whole question of the schools commissioner.
	The first set of amendments deals with the process of competition. Amendment No. 58 asks that the time period specified for preparation and submission of proposals in any competition should be reasonable. When a similar amendment was proposed in the Commons, the Government made it clear that they were sympathetic to the need to have balance between speedy competition and adequate time to prepare the proposal but did not think that the addition of the word "reasonable" was needed. We are concerned that inadequate time will favour the corporate sponsors—the Edisons of this world who will perhaps have a ready-made proposal that they can pull off the shelf—over, let us say, a local parents' group. I believe that the Government are anxious that such groups should put forward proposals. If those groups are to make such a proposal, they will need to find professional help, and the money to pay for such help in putting their proposal together. We feel that it is reasonable that "reasonable" should be included on the face of the Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 59 and 61 seek to prove the kinds of qualifications the Government have in mind for sponsors of trust schools. Perhaps we might put alongside Amendments Nos. 59 and 61 Amendments 121A and 125A, which seek to establish a register of institutions regarded as suitable to establish such foundations. Similar amendments were tabled on Report in the Commons. In response, the Secretary of State said:
	"Allowing schools to choose a trust partner only from a register would fetter the freedom of governing bodies to decide what is best for their schools, in light of their individual circumstances. It would lead to additional bureaucracy and delay, especially when schools were considering local, community-based trusts that would not benefit from a centralised process for formal approval".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/05/06; col. 1358.]
	During the Committee stage, the draft guidance on trust schools was circulated to MPs serving on Standing Committee E. This guidance singled out as unsuitable to become partners in running a trust school companies involved in tobacco, alcohol, gambling and adult entertainment. It stated that governing bodies should,
	"ensure that 'trust' partners are not involved in activities that may be considered inappropriate for young people".
	However, there is concern that any attempt to set out a list of inappropriate organisations will not address widespread concerns about trusts because of the organisations that the guidance fails to proscribe.For example, nothing in the guidance would necessarily protect young people from religious extremists,extreme political groups, pressure groups or fast-food manufacturers.
	The guidance makes it clear that the list is not exhaustive and that decision makers must have particular regard to the strength of parental and other local opinion about the appropriateness of trust partners' activities. It goes on to list positive examples of trust scenarios. These include a top-performing school taking over a weaker school, universities or colleges linking up with schools to improve the take-up of higher education and groups of schools banding together to share computer or financial management facilities. I suppose that that would extend to a group of schools already federated. We are very happy with those examples, but, significantly, there is no mention of faith groups or private companies in that list of positive examples.
	At Second Reading in the House of Commons, the then Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, sought to address concerns regarding trusts. She said:
	"I can tell the House that there will be very strong safeguards to prevent the acquisition of inappropriate trusts. That is essential. As a result, they will be regulated by the Charity Commission as well as by the local authority. They will be funded by the local authority, which will be able to object on educational grounds to any trust that it thinks will damage children's educational standards. However, perhaps the most important safeguard will be the common sense of the parents and governing bodies. They will decide whether it is in a school's interest to adopt a particular trust".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/06; cols. 1464-5.]
	The mention of common sense—

The Countess of Mar: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but could noble Lords opposite either talk outside or not talk, because it is very difficult to concentrate?

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Mention of common sense brings me rather neatly to the only other amendment in this first set that I have not so far dealt with—Amendment No. 60. If common sense is to be the arbiter of who might be a suitable partner, parents will be looking for a sponsor who will improve provision in their area. Therefore, it is utterly reasonable to ask, as Amendment No. 60 does, that those seeking to establish trust schools should specify how they would improve provision in the area and especially provision for the disadvantaged, since trust schools are to be established particularly to ensure that the disadvantaged get a reasonable share of the pie.
	That first set of amendments deals with the process of competition and, in particular, selection of sponsored partners. The second set of amendments in this group of 10 includes Amendments Nos. 125B to 125D. Their purpose is to promote the Liberal Democrat alternative to the Government's vision of the trust school. We would call it a "community trust", or, in the words of the Bill, a "community foundation". We have throughout argued in favour of viewing education from a community perspective. In this series of amendments, we propose a foundation run by a local authority or a grouping of local authorities. For example, a grouping of local district councils and the county council might form what we have called the community foundation.
	Amendment No. 125B specifies that the foundation will consist of one-third elected local authority members, one-third parents and one-third other community representatives. I am afraid that the gremlins got into the drafting of the amendment, which is incorrect on the Marshalled List. However, a new version of it has been circulated. Amendment No. 125C seeks to provide that such a community foundation would embrace all the schools in a given area, and would require that they all collaborated and worked together. Amendment No. 125D is consequential to those two amendments.
	It is notable that, in their evidence for Second Reading, both the General Teaching Council and the Association of School and College Leaders strongly endorsed the idea of encouraging schools to collaborate according to the concept of the local federation. The Government have been promoting such federations of schools at a local level, and the amendments seek to capture some of that enthusiasm and to translate it into what we believe to be acceptable—a local and locally accountable community foundation. I make no bones about the fact that we are not enthusiastic about foundations run as national chains of schools, whether they are run by Edison, Chris Woodhead or the United Learning Trust. We are not enthused by a model that separates out local schools and sets school against school and parent against parent, which we feel will happen under the Government's proposals, as I made quite clear in our discussions on earlier amendments. I repeat that we are anxious to see local schools working together for the good of their local community.
	Finally, Amendment No. 182 is designed to probe the role of the schools commissioner. Is he there just to supervise the work of the local choice advisers? Is he there to encourage the growth of new trust schools nationally? Is he there to ensure that the right people are setting up trust schools? We suggest that this is where he might perform quite a useful role if we really are to have another level of highly paid official to ensure that the Government's agenda is working properly. I believe that the post has already been advertised, so the Government are already moving to appoint a schools commissioner. It would be a great responsibility for schools to have to vet anyone who comes before them with proposals to turn the school into a trust school. Small schools in particular often do not have the resources to probe the background of such people, so the Secretary of State may well delegate the task of vetting those people to the schools commissioner.
	By publishing an open register, as the amendment proposes, we would avoid the need to have to use the freedom of information legislation, as now, to find out who has applied to form a trust. An open register would give parents and schools confidence in a system that is very new and highly suspect, in the view of many of our fellow citizens. It is therefore in the Government's interests to go along with this idea. Although local authorities should be able to decide what sorts of people are acceptable locally, there should be some sort of national standard of what is acceptable, otherwise undesirable people might simply go from one area to another until they find one that is not so choosy. The standards should be much more detailed than simply ruling out pornographers and tobacco manufacturers.
	The Government might say—indeed, they do say—that the Charity Commission will vet potential trustees, but the Charity Commission cannot do so for two reasons. First, it does not have the capacity to deal with the expected volume. Secondly, it would need to change and extend the checks that it already carries out on charity trustees in order to make them fit for purpose for this educational task. It is much better for the Secretary of State to delegate this task to the new commissioner. I beg to move.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: I strongly support my noble friend's arguments in favour of this group of proposals. Let us be very direct: if we believe that the Bill gives parents new powers, new strengths and a new influence, it is vital that those parents are properly informed about the decisions in which they will participate. My noble friend has pointed out that parents will not know exactly who is proposing to be part of trust schools or to start academies, or what their qualifications and standards are. It would be simply foolish in the light of a good deal of information that has emerged in the past few months to pretend that we are certain that all those people who put their names forward will be likely to contribute substantially to the standard, the quality and, if I may say so, the moral integrity of our education system.
	There are already some worrying examples. For instance, although Mr Bernie Ecclestone was not successful in his bid, we know now as a result of the Freedom of Information Act that he put in for running one of the academies in Sheffield. I am not in a position—nor would I wish—to make personal remarks about Mr Bernie Ecclestone, but he would not immediately leap to mind as an ideal figure for sponsoring a new school. In the case of the academy recently started in Peterborough, to take another example, we know that all three of the governing bodies of the schools to be replaced protested that there was no reason to believe that the sponsor had any particular interest in education. Other examples spring to mind. One of the most troubling is the possibility that arms manufacturers might be involved in starting up a trust school in the south-west of England. Arms manufacturers may well have a legitimate role, but again they do not leap to mind as an ideal model to be in charge of sponsoring a major new school. Perhaps one would want someone with a rather wider view of the needs of our globalising world.
	For such reasons, it seems to me that we should support the concept that my noble friend has put forward: a register giving the names and qualifications of those seeking to become trustees or sponsors of trust schools, which should be made available to those who are most interested and concerned—either the parents of children who may go to that school or the parents of children registered with schools that are being replaced by the potential trust school or academy.
	I register with pleasure the Government's intention in the Bill to make parents play a much larger part in the education of their children, but there are two huge weaknesses in the Bill. The first is the absence of adequate information for those parents to make up their minds and the second—which we will come to later and to which I will make no further reference at the moment—is the absence of a proper system of balloting so that we know exactly the wishes and preferences of parents. The principle is fine, but the devil is in the details. So far I for one am not satisfied that the details bear out the Government's stated wishes for the Bill.
	There are two other things worth adding. One is the point made by my noble friend about the ability to check up on the sponsors of schools at a later stage. Not only do we know that the Charity Commission does not have the capacity to do that, but the truth is that it does not do it. The recent answers that were given on the assessment of academies indicated that the Charity Commission does not regard this as a central part of its duties—indeed, it would not be expected to do so, given its functions.
	The question again emerges: who is responsible? Who guards the guardians? The answer may lie with the schools commissioner or with the local authority, but it is not at all clear where the responsibility lies. My noble friend has pointed to a real hole or gap in the Bill. She is endeavouring to fill it in a way that the Government, if they want the best possible outcomes from sponsored schools, should respond to favourably. Frankly, I do not think that the answers given in another place to the arguments put forward on this front for one moment hold sufficient water. Ruth Kelly, when she was Secretary of State, referred to the "common sense" of parents. I agree with her about the common sense of parents, but parents who are uninformed and not given the information that they need to reach proper opinions and make proper decisions cannot be blamed if they get it wrong. It is the responsibility of the Government in the Bill to make sure that as far as possible parents are given the information to enable them to get it right.

Baroness Buscombe: I should like to speak to some of these amendments and explain why we will not be supporting them. I refer in particular to Amendments Nos. 121A, 125A and 182. So far as we can understand, Amendment No. 121A would mean that trusts for trust schools would have to be centrally registered. I do not see the purpose of this since the governing body already has to have regard to guidance on the acquisition of trusts which makes it clear that unsuitable trusts may not run schools. Under the Bill the foundations already have to be charitable. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, evidently believes that registered charity status, together with the additional restriction on persons who may act as charity trustees for a foundation, is insufficient to ensure that trusts are suitable. I also doubt that any school would truly opt to acquire a trust that was actually as unsuitable as she and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, have suggested.
	Amendment No. 182 goes further and underlines the opposition of the Liberal Democrats to the concept of a school driven by parents. While it would prevent non-approved foundations proposing new schools without first registering with the Schools commissioner, it would also apply to groups of parents or any other private promoter. Furthermore, it would require local authorities to seek approval from the schools commissioner if they wish to establish new schools, which I am not sure is the intention here. This would mean an awful lot more bureaucracy with unintended consequences. Indeed, it is interesting to note that while the Liberal Democrats have spent so much time both here and in another place criticising the Government and the Opposition for imposing central control from Whitehall, here they propose an unnecessary central layer of bureaucracy from Whitehall.
	Turning to a redefinition of the word "foundation", set out in Amendments Nos. 125B to 125D, we see that Amendment No. 125B redefines foundations where a local authority is represented on the foundation. It would mean that a,
	"majority, but no more than 33 per cent., of its members shall be members",
	of the local education authority. However, it should be noted that members of local education authorities are currently prohibited from acting as charity trustees under the draft education regulations 2006 covering the requirements as to foundations. I am not sure what a "majority, but no more than 33 per cent.," means. Perhaps the noble Baroness meant plurality, although perhaps not since it also specifies that a second 33 per cent would be represented by parents. The remaining third would be represented by the community. I am not sure of the purpose behind this amendment. However, it would prevent a number of possibilities, including the possibility of a local authority entering into partnership with a philanthropic organisation such as an educational charity or livery company for the purpose of running a school, which would be a great shame—in fact, it would be a disaster.
	I hope that Amendment No. 125C is unnecessary since I imagine that trusts could already act in the way envisaged in the amendment. Amendment No. 125D would remove new Section 23(b) of the School Standards and Framework Act, which will allow the Secretary of State to remove charity trustees. This was raised in another place, at the end of which Sarah Teather MP said that the then Minister had addressed most of her concerns. At the time the Minister made it clear that the removal of a charity trustee was a fallback position to be used in exceptional circumstances and gave compelling reasons for having such a power, particularly that it is impossible to set out in regulations all possible future circumstances. Paragraph 7 of the draft regulations shows that the power can be used only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has acted in any way incompatible with the objectives or purposes of the foundation or the person is likely to bring into disrepute any school to which the foundation appoints governors. I believe that when we are dealing with children in education, it is vitally important to protect them from unsuitable persons. If Clause 125D were accepted, I fear it risks undermining the safety of children by preventing the Secretary of State acting in cases that fall short of the criteria listed in regulations.
	Perhaps I may add a point on the absence of information for parents to act on when choosing a school. We look forward to seeing the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who I know is keen on having some form of information pack. Indeed, he goes further than that by suggesting information centres to give parents the opportunity to gather information easily on the different schools and choices available to them within their area.

Lord Adonis: Amendment No. 58 seeks to ensure that the time for promoters for submit proposals should be reasonable. We agree, but I am glad to say that in fact the regulations concerning this provision, which I have now circulated, lay down that the period must be at least four months. As those regulations will be in place, that will be an absolute requirement. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and other noble Lords will agree that four months is a reasonable period, including for community groups that may take longer to put proposals together.
	On Amendments Nos. 59, 61, 121A, 125A and 182, we agree that there need to be appropriate safeguards against unsuitable partners being involved in the running of schools. That is why we have a proper process in place for governing bodies to publish proposals in respect of trusts and to take decisions in relation to them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, recognised, substantial guidance is being made available to schools on this, which I think meets the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Williams. I have circulated the draft guidance to the Committee. I quote from page 128 of it:
	"In determining the suitability and appropriateness of a particular Trust, a governing body should therefore:
	"Consider whether and how the acquisition of the particular Trust will support the school in raising standards, improving the quality of teaching and learning and improving delivery of the five 'Every Child Matters' outcomes for all children;
	"Consider how the Trust fits with the school's character and ethos and how it will develop the culture of the school further;
	"Consider what perspectives, experience and skills the Trust will bring to support the school's mission;
	"Consider the potential impact of the partnership on other schools in the locality and on any other organisations or bodies likely to be affected;
	"Take into account the local authority's and parents' view of the potential Trust and the nature of the partnership with the school;
	"Take into account the Trust's previous track record of involvement in schools and education more generally, as well as the experience and expertise of the proposed Trustees;
	"Consider whether particular Trusts should be considered unsuitable on the grounds of inappropriateness—for example, ensure that Trust partners are not involved in activities that may be considered inappropriate for children and young people (for example, tobacco, gambling, adult entertainment, alcohol etc.)".
	I believe that that meets the points raised in that regard.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Of course, as he suggests, the recommendations and advice given in the document that he has circulated are extremely acceptable, and anyone would recognise that.
	The big question is why parents per se are not given an opportunity to contribute to that decision because they know the names and qualifications of those involved. Why do they have to go through the governing body to do that, and why is it a matter only for the governing body to determine how far their views are taken into account?

Lord Adonis: The governing body will need to take into account the views of parents. We shall debate later the noble Baroness's precise amendments on ballots of parents. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments, but this is the standard procedure for schools taking decisions of the utmost gravity affecting them in many other areas, including a whole range of other characteristics concerning the future of the school. We do not believe that, in qualitative terms, this is any different.
	However, over and above the requirements on the school governing body both in terms of how it makes the decision and the factors that it must take into account, we have given a power to local authorities to refer proposals to the adjudicator when they are concerned about the implications for a particular trust of standards at a school. The adjudicator will then make a professional and impartial judgment, which, of course, will override that of the governing body in the event of that judgment being different. We do not think it necessary to regulate further than that. In particular, we believe that the creation of a national register would act as a barrier to innovation and fetter the freedom of governing bodies to decide what is best for their own schools, subject to oversight by the adjudicator.
	In so far as the register proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is intended to be illustrative and informative to encourage the development of appropriate trusts, this function will indeed be performed by the national schools commissioner, who will keep a record of all trusts established and make it available on his website. Therefore, there will be no need TO use the FoI Act, as the noble Baroness feared.
	With regard to the kinds of trusts that may come forward, we expect that they will include higher and further education institutions, existing successful schools and bona fide education and business foundations. A particular concern of the noble Baroness is whether they can include community trusts. If she means trusts that have local authority engagement within the provisions of the Bill as it stands, they absolutely can. We will give strong encouragement to local authorities to be engaged in trusts alongside other local community groups and organisations which can make a substantial contribution to improving schools.
	Amendment No. 60 would require a notice published by a local authority inviting bids in a competition to specify in what ways proposals would improve education in the area, especially those from disadvantaged homes. I believe we have covered that. The illustrative regulations that I made available to the Committee require the notice setting out the invitation to partners to come forward to provide a new school; to explain why the new school is considered necessary; the reason for the choice of sites; the size and age range of the school; and any extended or special needs provision. The notice can also specify other matters, including objectives specifically in respect of disadvantaged pupils or communities. Furthermore, local authorities will judge the competition unless they choose to enter their own proposals, in which case it will be the adjudicator. That will enable local authorities to ensure that the successful proposal meets the needs of the disadvantaged and demonstrates the right characteristics.
	Amendments Nos. 125BA and 125C seek to enhance the influence of the local authority over trusts and trust schools. As I say, we support the concept of a community trust. If that means a trust as set out under the provisions of the Bill, of course it can proceed. The 20 per cent level for local authority engagement in trusts, as set out in the Bill, gives local authorities the flexibility to play a valuable role in brokering those relationships and supporting the formation of trusts in their communities. The 20 per cent figure is also consistent with provisions in local government legislation about local authority involvement in companies and trusts more widely.
	However, we do not believe that it is right to increase that proportion beyond 20 per cent, which will get close to making local authorities the dominant force in a trust. If a local authority wishes to have that level of control over a trust, it anyway has the option of promoting a community school and exercising this control directly, provided that its track record is good enough. When taken in the round, our policy on trusts is balanced, proportional and workable. Our policy on collaboration is enabling and not prescriptive. I hope that I have met the concerns that have been raised.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I should like to clear up one or two misconceptions on the part of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, before replying to some of the points that he has made. I should make absolutely clear that we are not opposed to trusts being established by groups of parents. Essentially, we would very much like to see that. The concept of the local community trust is the local authority and local groups of parents getting together to promote a local community of schools. I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not read Amendment No. 182 to mean this, but that is what we meant.
	I also think that the noble Baroness misread another amendment. The clean version which has been circulated in manuscript today makes it quite clear that we are looking at members of local authorities. We are specifically looking to a situation where it might be the district council, which is not an education authority, participating in the local community trust. We feel that this is a question of trying to get local community and democratic representation within the concept of the trust. So far as the trust is concerned, schools will be spending a considerable proportion of money. It is appropriate that there is democratic accountability within the governance of the system. A situation such as one has with academies where the only accountability is with the Secretary of State is not one that we feel to be thoroughly satisfactory.
	In relation to the other set of amendments, we accept, as the Minister says, that four months is reasonable. As I have suggested, in so far as it would be a group of parents proposing to do this, it would take time to get together, particularly if proposals have to be put forward in full legalistic form. It takes time to find the appropriate legal expertise and to raise the money to pay for the expertise that one has to lay on in the circumstances. The Minister made it clear that it is up to the school governing body to be discriminatory among those who might be suggesting themselves as sponsors of trusts, particularly if it is a small primary school, However, it is also important to remember that it is not always easy for such a governing body to be particularly knowledgeable and in this sense I am pleased to hear that as far as he is concerned they will have the help of the schools commissioner in being able to discriminate between what one might term good and bad sponsors. The framework of regulations as he says lays that down but nevertheless they have to be interpreted and implemented by the governing body and it is not always easy for a governing body to be able to discriminate in this way. It could be useful to have a register in such circumstances.
	I am delighted that the Minister is as positive ashe is about the concept of community trusts or foundations. From these Benches this is very much our vision of the way in which we would like to see the provisions working. We have made it clear that we are not enamoured of the private sector sponsors and would prefer to see such foundations emerging from the local community, but with the reassurances that he has given us I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 59 to 64 not moved.]

Baroness Williams of Crosby: moved Amendment No. 65:
	Page 7, line 19, at end insert-
	"( ) The Secretary of State may not refuse consent under subsection (5)(b)(ii) in any case in which the request by the authority for such consent is shown to be supported by parents in such numbers and in such categories as may be prescribed by regulations."

Baroness Williams of Crosby: The heart of this group of amendments concerns ballots and their consequences and the expression of parental opinion in a clear majority with regard to the establishment of new schools and the laying down of proposals for the establishment of new maintained schools. The essence of the Government's view of the Bill as I mentioned a moment or two ago is that the role of parents should be given the fullest possible width and that parents should be involved in the maintenance and establishment of schools to the limit that is possible within a system.
	The earlier group of amendments that we discussed was intended to give the maximum possible information about future sponsors of schools to parents. This group of amendments concerns the right of parents to make their views known about the establishment of a new community school or a new community special school in certain circumstances where it is clear according to regulation that parents have established that they have a majority wish to go ahead with the establishment of a new community school that should override any attempt to limit that, for example, by requiring the Secretary of State's consent.
	To put it simply, either the Government believe that parents should have the decisive voice in the establishment of one type of school or another, or they do not. We have therefore indicated in this group of amendments the circumstances in which parental opinion should be decisive. One of those is with regard to an attempt put forward by a local authority to establish a new community school where it is clear after consultation with parents that the majority of parents wished that to happen. We do not believe it is right that there should be additional sets of bureaucratic requirements that would override that wish of parents.
	We have also indicated that where a local authority puts forward proposals for a new community school, those proposals should be published if again it is the wish of the parents of children registered at school or registered at feeder schools that the proposals should be considered and should go ahead. Some years ago, parents were largely excluded from the education process. That changed rather dramatically in 1976 with the Taylor commission, which was the responsibility of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who is I am delighted to say a Member of this House. The commission proposed that one-quarter of the governors of the governing bodies of maintained schools should be elected by parents and should represent them.
	One concern that we have about this Bill is that with trust schools and academies the role of parents is decisively reduced. We find that hard to associate with a Bill that is intended to give parents a larger not a smaller voice. Therefore, to put it straightforwardly, on the crucial issue of changes in category of schools and on the proposals for establishing new maintained schools, and for putting forward those ideas, we believe that a ballot should be held. The ballot should turn on a majority of parents having their voices heard and their opinions made known, which should be a decisive factor in deciding whether to establish a new school of a maintained community nature or, for that matter, in putting forward such proposals.
	I remind the House what the former Minister, Ruth Kelly, said in another place, when she referred to the common sense of parents. My noble friend quoted her remarks. But if we do not know what parents want, referring to their common sense does not add up to very much. I pay tribute in that respect to the previous Conservative Government, who insisted that there should be a ballot before a school became a grant-maintained school. Some 2,000 ballots were duly held, after the establishment of the idea of grant-maintained schools, on which the Government made it plain at the time that parents would be given the opportunity to express their views. One-third, or about 800 of those 2,000 ballots, went against the proposal for the grant-maintained school, and that was respected by the Government, who did not go ahead with imposing grant-maintained status on schools whose parents did not wish it. In two-thirds of the cases—that is, some 12,000 ballots—the parents agreed to the establishment of grant-maintained schools, which duly went ahead. We on these Benches would profoundly regret a reduction in the influence and voice of parents, and we cannot believe that that is what the Government intend, as it is not what they have said.
	So what is the argument against ballots, in straightforward terms? The strangest one that I have heard so far, which was put forward in another place, was that ballots would in some way restrict the likelihood of foundation schools being allowed to go ahead and restrict the innovatory prospects for academies and CTCs, so that it would not be wise to give parents this major part in the system. One thing that has emerged clearly from discussions on the Bill, from beginning to end, in discussing children with special educational needs and those who are disadvantaged and whose parents do not take a full part in concern for their education, is that it is crucial to a good education that parents are involved from the beginning to the end. It is crucial that their association with their child's future and school and with their own responsibilities in that respect should be considered as a primary purpose of legislation.
	Sadly, we live at a time when there is not a great deal of trust in the political system and when more and more people argue that they are not consulted and listened to and that their views are not taken fully into account. There is a simple mechanism for taking those views fully into account—a mechanism that has been tried and tested over many decades in this country and which, above all, should apply to schools. It has been much welcomed by parents, who have enthusiastically taken part in ballots of this kind. Indeed, the grant-maintained school ballots attracted turn-outs of 67 per cent and more on average, far above the level of turnout that one associates with local government and roughly level with what one associates with general elections. There is no evidence whatever that parents are apathetic about this kind of question; indeed, they feel very deeply involved.
	Not to prolong the discussion—although I believe it to be central to the whole nature and quality of this Bill—we must ask whether we believe that parents should be fully involved. If so, why do we not trust them to make that decision on the basis of a properly organised ballot on the crucial issues of changing a school from one category to another and of whether a school should continue when there is a proposal to discontinue it? Surely, we should listen to the parents and, when they are of suitable age, the pupils. I beg to move the amendment, and I do so with very strong feeling about how much is at stake.

Lord Gould of Brookwood: I am strongly in favour of empowering parents; I am in favour of empowering everyone. That is the basis of my politics and that is why I support this Bill. I want parents to have the chance to choose the school that is right for their children; not just a good local school, but the best possible school for them. This Bill is about empowering parents and about giving them choices, voices and access, as the noble Baroness said, from the beginning until the end. That does not mean a compulsory one-off ballot; it is not about that. It is about a continuing process of engagement and participation through school choice, parental councils, schools that respect and listen to the views of parents as mandated by the Bill, real rights of redress and a real involvement over time on a continuing basis. Some 72 per cent of parents want more involvement in their schools, and the Bill enables that to happen.
	The question that we have to ask is whether the amendment mandating balloting takes the cause of empowerment forward or back. Compulsory ballots are a cumbersome, time-consuming and rather intimidating procedure that is intended to slow down the pace of reform and to make genuine parental participation less likely rather than more. That is not to say that ballots should not be held if the governing body wishes to hold them; but it is to say that one-off, compulsory ballots do not help the cause of greater parental empowerment but are likely to slow it down. One-off compulsory ballots are not genuine participation; they are a device to get in the way of genuine participation, and they should be resisted.
	The metaphor of politics has been used. Just as it is true to say that a general election every four to five years no longer represents participation and no longer represents involvement, it is true to say that a compulsory ballot, held possibly once in the life of a parent, does not begin to offer the participation that we need. This Bill is about real empowerment and real involvement over a period of time from the beginning to the end, as the noble Baroness said, and the compulsory balloting procedure is an attempt to get in the way of that, not to assist it.

Lord Baker of Dorking: I did not expect to agree so completely with the words of the noble Lord, who is one of the gurus of the Labour Party, but I do. I find the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness unconvincing. I thought that the amendments were confused, and I wanted to hear her explanation. I now am clear where she starts from; as I understand it, she wants the views of parents to predominate. That is her main consideration. I agree with that, but I do not think that this is the way to do it.
	The Government clearly expect from this Bill something corresponding to the Scandinavian pattern where, as a result of allowing communities to come together, there will be a welling-up of the parental opinion saying that they want a new school. They will put forward their proposals, and the parents will be very committed. I do not think that there will be an absence of parental commitment to fulfilling the objectives of the Bill, and I support that.
	Let us suppose the parents in a town such as south Bolton came together and said that they wanted a new school. Who should vote in that ballot? All the parents in south Bolton? All the parents of primary school children in south Bolton? All the parents of secondary school children in south Bolton? It is a totally impractical suggestion when you are considering a new school. You could not devise the electoral list on which a ballot could take place.
	But what of a ballot in a school which already exists? This was the problem with which I was faced when I introduced grant-maintained schools. Back in 1988, if I had left it purely in the power of the governing body to create a grant-maintained school, I could not have got the Bill through. I could not have got it passed either by the House of Commons or the House of Lords. Many Conservative local education authorities would have burnt my effigy and said that it was absolutely unforgivable. So I introduced the complicated arrangements of ballots, and I did so to break the mould. I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. If they were introduced now, they would be used as a delaying device by the local education authorities, because in nearly all those grant-maintained-school ballots, pitched against the wishes of parents was the local education authority, which would spend vast sums of public money on publicity in an effort to prevent schools becoming grant maintained. Many local education authorities will not embrace the idea of new community schools being established. They like to maintain their hegemony and their monopoly. I do not believe that their attitudes have changed at all.
	Therefore, the proposals of the Liberal Democrats in this matter are not at all feasible as regards new schools and are unnecessary as regards established schools. They would have a delaying effect. As I have said, I did what I did to break the mould. The mould is broken. Parents are now much more involved in the running of schools than they were back in the 1980s. They are very committed, not only in the leafy suburbs but also in the inner cities. The amendments are unnecessary and would be harmful to the Bill.

Baroness Walmsley: I rise in response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gould. If this Bill is really about empowering parents, why not give them a vote in the most important decision to be made about any school, which is its governance? Why are the Government frightened of parents? The noble Lord, Lord Gould, talked about one-off compulsory ballots as if they were the only way in which we on these Benches wanted to have parents involved in schools. Of course, that is not the case. There is no reason why a one-off compulsory ballot should preclude all the other, very desirable ways in which good schools should involve parents. It is like saying that you can have four or five years of focus groups, but that you cannot have a general election at the end of it. Does the noble Lord assume that the results of the ballots will get in the way of the expansion of trust schools? In objecting to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Williams, he seemed to be assuming that parents will vote against the establishment of trusts. If the Government really believe in the common sense of parents, why not allow parents to express that common sense in democratic ballot?

Lord Northbourne: It is encouraging to hear such unanimity across the Committee on the importance of parents. Let us be sure when we consult parents that we consult all parents and not merely those who are accustomed to public speaking and those who have a voice; we must listen also to those who are deprived and disadvantaged.

Lord Adonis: The amendments would amend the process by which schools are established and, in some cases, interpose another statutory layer, the parental ballot, into the local decision-making process.
	Parental ballots were the subject of long debates and, indeed, a ballot in the elected House of Commons, which voted by a huge majority of 291—that is, 412 votes against 121—against proposals similar to these. The Government's arguments against these proposals have not changed: first, a ballot may be an appropriate form of consultation in some circumstances—I am strongly in favour of local ballots in appropriate cases, including local referendums conducted by local authorities—but both governing bodies and local authorities have powers to conduct such ballots at present. It would be disproportionate to require ballots for a change to trust status to take place. Secondly,if ballots are to be mandatory, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, the precise electorate for the ballots would need to be set out either in primary or secondary legislation. It would be highly problematic to do so and it is not attempted in any of the amendments before us.
	Thirdly, it is fairly obvious from the debate so far that the essential motivation behind these amendments is one of antipathy to trusts and trust schools. This is shown by the fact that there is a whole range of other equally—if not more—fundamental decisions affecting the character of schools and local educational provision, in respect of which no amendments requiring ballots have been tabled. For example, there are school closures—including the closure of special schools, the single most emotive issue for parents that crosses my desk as a Minister—changes to admissions arrangements, the addition or subtraction of 6th forms—another highly emotive issue for parents—the addition or subtraction of special needs provision, the change to specialist status, the choice of specialism, the relocation of a school and the move in a locality from a three-tier to a two-tier system.
	All those are hugely difficult and often controversial issues of educational policy for individual schools and local provision, and there are no amendments down to ensure that these are subject to ballots. Nor do I recall the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Children Bill which would have required ballots on the setting up of children's centres, or the judging between, for example, proposals put forward by existing state schools as against those put forward by private and voluntary sector providers.
	Fourthly, there are, however, substantial requirements as to consultation in all the changes of school status and organisations set out in the Bill, and on proposals put forward by local authorities. These are in accord with established consultation procedures for the other kinds of change of status and provision I have just mentioned. They are satisfactory. Furthermore, in the case of a school wishing to acquire a trust, there is a further specific power in the Bill for local authorities to refer such plans to the adjudicator when the local authority believes there has been inadequate consultation, including with parents. These amendments are neither necessary nor desirable. That concludes our case.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: Briefly, I will not push these amendments at present, but I shall make a couple of points. First, we have specifically called for a ballot on the discontinuance of a school, one of the areas the Minister referred to. We have indicated that, where a school is to be discontinued, there should be a ballot of parents because they are profoundly affected by it. We proposed, in a new clause, that there should be a meeting of parents before any final decision is made. That goes some way to refute the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gould of Brookwood, who suggested that we were only pressing for a single ballot once there was to be a change in the nature of a school, or the advancement of a new school. That is not the case: we specifically called for a parental meeting.
	The Government are using the argument that this will delay everything in an extraordinary way. Surely what matters most, as has been central to our discussion of this education Bill, is that there should be the highest possible quality of schooling and that children should be secure in a well organised, accountable and responsible school. That is what concerns us. As we have often argued from these Benches, there should be a level playing field. Parents should have a strong voice in the choices to be made. Whatever our views may be on a particular trust school one way or the other, our crucial responsibility is to ensure that parents are given the choice of the kind of education they want for their child. Frankly, without a ballot or a requirement for a parents' meeting, it is difficult to see why governing bodies should think they know what parents' wishes might be better than the parents themselves. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Crawley: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

G8: 2006 Summit

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the G8 Summit which took place on 15 to 17 July in St Petersburg. I pay tribute to President Putin's chairmanship and the Russian Government's handling of the summit. The whole of the summit was understandably overshadowed by the tragic and terrible events in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. For days, we have seen the innocent killed by terrorism, as a deliberate act, by Hezbollah; civilians killed in the course of military retaliation by Israel; and the disintegration of our hopes for stability in this, the most fraught area of dispute in the world."Over 1,600 rockets and mortars have fallen on northern Israel, in an arc from Haifa to Tiberias, deliberately targeting civilians. In Lebanon, more than 230 people have been killed, the vast majority of them civilians. Houses, roads, essential infrastructure, factories and Lebanese Army facilities have been damaged. Once again, we have made it clear to Israel that it is essential to take account of the humanitarian situation, and ensure that military action is proportionate. We grieve for the innocent Israelis and innocent Lebanese civilians who are dead, for their families who mourn and for their countries that are caught up in the spiral of escalating confrontation. "There are also more than 10,000 British nationals in Lebanon, and probably many more, including a significant number of dual Lebanese British nationals. I know that people who are there, and their families in the UK and elsewhere, are worried about the situation. We are working as hard and as quickly as we can to ensure that we are able to evacuate all those who wish to leave. We evacuated 63 of the most vulnerable British nationals from Beirut by air yesterday, but the safest way to evacuate large numbers of civilians is by sea. This is a complex and enormous logistical operation, which we are co-ordinating with our EU and international partners. "Teams of consular, military and medical officials have deployed to Beirut, Cyprus and Damascus. We have six ships in the region or heading for the region: the "York" and the "Gloucester" are now offshore, and the "Illustrious", "Bulwark", "St Aubens" and "RFA Victoria Fort" are heading there. The first evacuation by ship is taking place today, and further evacuations will follow. The advice to British nationals is to stay put and remain in contact with the British Embassy."However, we should be in no doubt about the immediate cause for this situation. It started with the kidnap of an Israeli soldier in Gaza and then action by Israel, targeting Hamas on the Palestinian side. Then, without provocation, Hezbollah crossed the blue line established by UN resolutions, killed eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two more. Israel then again retaliated in air strikes against targets in Beirut. This situation therefore began with acts of extremism by militant groups that were, as the G8 said unanimously, without any justification and, of course, were designed to provoke the very response that followed. "In the communiqué issued by the G8, we refer to and condemn the activities of the extremist groups and, more elliptically, as we say, 'those that support them'. For most of us at the G8, we can be less elliptical. Hezbollah is supported by Iran and Syria: by the former in weapons—weapons incidentally very similar if not identical to those used against British troops in Basra—by the latter in many different ways and by both of them financially. Therefore, what is at stake could not be more stark. "On the one side, there is Lebanon, a remarkable democratic achievement from the days when Lebanon was a by-word for instability and conflict. I have once again given the Prime Minister my solidarity and support in the immense difficulties he now faces. There are also those in Israel and in Palestine desperate to see progress towards the only solution that will ever work there; namely, two states, Israel and Palestine, both democratic, both independent, both at peace. But on the other side are those who want no compromise, who cannot see that terrorism is not the route to a solution but a malign, fundamental obstacle to it. They persist in terrorism, knowing that its impact there is the same the world over: to divide, to create hatred and to drive out negotiation. That is the purpose of it. "So what can be done? I know many wanted the G8 to call for an immediate ceasefire on the part of Israel. Of course, we all want all violence to stop and to stop immediately, but we recognise that the only realistic way to achieve such a ceasefire is to address the underlying reasons why this violence has broken out."In respect of Lebanon, the G8 proposed rapid work on inserting an international security presence in southern Lebanon to stabilise the situation, ensure that the terrorism from the Lebanese side ends, and, most important, to provide conditions in which the Lebanese armed forces can take control and assist in doing so. "Meanwhile, the UN Secretary-General's special envoys are in the region, and will report to the Security Council later this week, and US Secretary of State Rice also intends to make an early visit. We welcome and support these and other efforts to calm the situation."We also encouraged dialogue between the Lebanese and Israeli Governments and we pledged at the G8 further economic support to Lebanon. And of course we demanded the return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Only in this way can we at last implement UN Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1680."In Gaza, we made clear that our goal was an immediate end to the violence, and we put forward the measures necessary: release of the Israeli soldiers and of the Palestinian Ministers and parliamentarians; an end to attacks on Israel; resumption of security co-operation between Israel and Palestine; restarting political contacts between Israeli and Palestinian officials; and an end to Israeli military operations and the withdrawal of Israeli forces. But let us be very plain. We can and must stabilise the existing situation in Lebanon and in Gaza. We must use such stabilisation to help Lebanon rebuild and eventually to re-begin negotiations between Israel and Palestine. But at root, we need to recognise the fundamental nature of the struggle in the region, which has such far-reaching consequences far beyond that region and consequences even in countries like our own. "All over the Middle East there are those who want to modernise their nations, who believe as we do in democracy and liberty and tolerance. But ranged against them are extremists who believe the opposite, who believe in fundamentalist states and war not against Israel's actions but against its existence. In virtually every country of the region, including on the streets of Baghdad, such a struggle is being played out. The danger is that moderate voices get squeezed. When this current vision abates, this is the issue to which we must return, in the way the G8 outlined two years ago but has not so far put fully into effect."Let me touch on issues that were raised elsewhere. On Africa, we made modest, but important, progress in taking forward the commitments of last year through the discussions on infectious diseases and education, including: scaling up action on HIV/AIDS through replenishing the Global Fund in 2006 and 2007; new initiatives on vaccines for malaria and pneumoccocus and fully funding the education fast track initiative. We agreed to review progress on Africa again at the G8 Summit in 2007 and I have asked the International Development Secretary to set out key milestones for the coming 12 months in his next report to Parliament. These will include us supporting 10 African countries, developing long-term education plans and getting the debts cancelled for five more African countries. Kofi Annan will also convene the Africa Progress Panel to monitor progress on commitments given."I also discussed Sudan with a number of G8 leaders and Kofi Annan. We agreed the situation in Darfur continues to be unacceptable and the need for a quick deployment of the UN force."On trade, at the final session, it was at last agreed by all to empower their negotiations to go further. The cost of failure for the world's poor, global growth and multilateralism would be high. Presidents Bush, Barroso, Lula, Mbeki, Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Singh of India all agreed to show flexibility, so we asked Pascal Lamy to immediately convene trade negotiators to turn this clear commitment into action that delivers real cuts in agricultural tariffs, and subsidies and progress on non-agricultural market access. I do not minimise the very substantial obstacles that still remain, but at least this renewed commitment from the US, the EU and the G20 was immensely welcome."We also agreed a strong package for poor countries, including $4 billion a year aid for trade and action on rules of origin and we remain fully committed to ensuring that, in any event for this round, it would be utterly wrong for there not to be a full development package for the poorest nations."There was a fascinating debate on energy at the summit, of direct relevance to this country. There was a virtual consensus around the fact that energy prices will continue to rise, with an increase now predicted of around 50 per cent in energy demand by 2030; that climate change is now universally accepted as happening, including by the United States, and therefore there is an urgent necessity to take the measures to make further economic growth sustainable; and that countries will therefore need to have balanced energy policies in which clean coal technology, carbon sequestration, renewables and nuclear power will have to play a part. Our own energy review was therefore absolutely in line with that consensus."On nuclear, what was interesting was the statement by China that it intends to develop nuclear power, by India that it regarded it as indispensable and by many of the main oil producers including Kazakhstan that they would also balance their reliance on their own oil and gas with nuclear. It was also the conclusion of the J8, the young people from around the world who debated the issue."The G8 also agreed on the need to accelerate discussions on an inclusive dialogue for a post-2012 framework and that framework importantly includes the United States, China and India."The G8 supported the need for a goal to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations, which will be a central part of the future framework. The Gleneagles dialogue meeting in Mexico would be the next step in taking this work forward."This was a summit held in circumstances none of us could have foreseen. It was dominated by the Middle East, but its conclusions on Africa, on trade and on energy will, I hope, stand the test of time and I commend the conclusions to the House."
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement—an unusually lengthy Statement and a very useful report back. We had a full Statement yesterday on the grave situation in the Middle East and the House will be grateful for the further update that we have just been given.
	Do the Government agree with the view of the United States that much of the responsibility for the fomenting of terrorism— I think that was the word President Bush was feeling for—lies with Syria, whose president was recently feted by the Government in London? What leverage has that courting of President Assad given us in Damascus?
	Do the Government also agree with the view of the United States that the greatest responsibility for the financing and arming of terrorism lies with Iran? Is it not essential that Damascus and Teheran get a united message, not only from the G8, but also from China and India, so recently tragically affected by terrorism, that the promotion of terrorism must stop?
	How much could have been done to relieve the evils of poverty and suffering that we see in Gaza and in Lebanon if only one hundredth of the money poured into financing terrorist training guns and arms had gone into education, the fight against disease and the promotion of civil society, as the G8 rightly asked?
	It is clear that a solution must include the release of Israeli hostages, the end of rocket attacks on Israel, the end of the bombardment of Gaza and Lebanon, whose governments were lawfully elected, and a future for Lebanon without armed militias, as so many of its people have shown they want.
	The G8 brought together leaders of the world's major powers. There were great declarations but what specifically will be done? Some people have the impression that the role of the Prime Minister is largely to act as a Sherpa for President Bush. Can the noble Baroness assure us that Britain will make a distinctive and independent contribution? How widespread is support for the Prime Minister's concept of an intervention force? How could it be injected when the level of violence is so high and without the consent of the contending parties? How could we make it more valuable than the existing UNIFIL? Would it have a potential combat role in restoring stability, that the British Army finds itself undertaking in Afghanistan? If so, who would take part? What undertakings were given in St Petersburg? How could our stretched Armed Forces help?
	We know that the Prime Minister is considering visiting the Middle East, preparatory to a possible visit by the US Secretary of State. Is there any view on when that visit might take place and what the objectives would be?
	Naturally the whole House is concerned about the safety of British citizens, but who is co-ordinating the evacuation effort? How many British citizens are in Lebanon? How many have been evacuated? Is it 10,000 in, 63 out, as the Statement indicated? What is the current advice to British citizens and are they all able to access it? Does the noble Baroness have any concerns that our efforts to date have been less decisive than those of some other countries? How many people can be accommodated on Cyprus and what contingency plans are being put in place for a long stay?
	We welcome the united stance of the G8 on restraining the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, but what in practice was decided in relation to North Korea? President Putin said that it was too early to speak of sanctions on Iran, but if Iranian intransigence continues, will the G8 states not have to return to the Security Council with a view to possible sanctions? He also laid great emphasis on energy policy, which is scarcely surprising. Was the UK one of the countries that, in the words of the communiqué, underlined the important contribution of nuclear power to global energy security? Does the noble Baroness share my disappointment at the relatively weak emphasis on reducing energy consumption when there was a great deal on advancing oil and gas sales? Can she confirm that all states subscribed to the declaration that producer countries, notably Russia, should be enabled to take over energy assets in consumer countries? Does that mean that the UK Government will positively welcome acquisitions by Gazprom and other Russian giants in the United Kingdom? Can she write to me if she does not have the answers now about what discussions there were, if any, about corporate governance issues?
	I know that the noble Baroness will share my disappointment that the crisis in the Middle East meant that there was less momentum behind the initiatives on Africa and fighting world poverty. The communiqué was a little thin on concrete action on that front—"modest" was the word that the normally effusive Prime Minister used. The noble Baroness will not be surprised if I ask her to tell the House what steps were agreed against the murderous Mugabe regime. I note that that was not mentioned as one of the key milestones for the International Development Secretary to report on.
	A successful trade round will do more than anything else to alleviate poverty. Are the UK Government satisfied that all the G8 leaders are prepared to compromise to do a deal? Time is running out, but world attention is focused elsewhere. There was discussion on Kosovo and Nagorno-Karabakh. Does the noble Baroness agree that the only sensible outcome should be multiethnic? Did the UK Government raise the issue of Georgia and separatism in Abkhazia and Ossetia? How does the UK assess risks of linkage if western members of the G8 encourage independence for Kosovo?
	This is a time of major tests for the G8. The urgent need is for peace in the Middle East and a common front to eradicate violence and terrorism, but the vital need for long-term progress is on trade and the eradication of disease. Does the G8 not also need to show renewed momentum and intensify efforts to achieve those worthy goals?

Lord McNally: My Lords, for the man and woman in the street, I suppose there could be no greater contrast in watching their evening news than seeing the pomp and circumstance of a St Petersburg summit—a gathering of the most powerful nations on earth—and a fast cut to a disaster in the Middle East, of which those mighty powers seem totally impotent to influence the outcome. That is the worry: the juxtaposition between the activities of the big powers and the capacity of individuals and organisations to set in train destabilisation of a whole region. In the light of the experience in St Petersburg, has the quartet of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU any feelings of special responsibility and activity at present? If we have to understand why there should be no call for an immediate ceasefire, when should such a ceasefire take place?
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke of the situation of UK nationals in the conflict zone. A large number of countries are taking action at present. On the tapes I saw about eight different evacuation plans under way. Is there any co-ordination to make those plans more effective?
	Like the noble Lord, I should be interested in clarification of the reported interest of the Prime Minister in undertaking some kind of shuttle diplomacy in the region. I may return to that subject when concluding my remarks. I agree with the Prime Minister that the fundamental nature of the struggle in the region has to be understood. Do the Prime Minister and the Government accept that a settlement of the Palestine/Israel conflict is a precondition of winning the war on terrorism? If the conflict goes unresolved, it will remain the major recruiting sergeant for extremists seeking a holy war with the West.
	Do the Government agree that a disproportionate use of force is counterproductive and has within it the seeds of a wider regional conflict with unforeseeable consequences? In that respect, have the Government made any further clarification of their policy on UK arms exports to the region?
	On the other issues in the summit, progress was made, not least on trade. But there was a feeling that the crusading urgency that dominated Gleneagles a year ago as regards the war on poverty has been lost. As one aid organisation observed, after the G8 leaders promised to make poverty history last year, this summit has been a damp squib. Is there not a particular onus on the United States and the EU to stop blaming each other and to take action to follow up the Gleneagles promises to break the trade deadlock?
	On energy, I find it most interesting that Russia, although no longer considered a military superpower, is undoubtedly an energy superpower. Do the Government have initiatives to involve Russia more fully in future discussions about energy needs?
	There is a dilemma in respect of Iran. On the one hand, we want to talk to Iran about its nuclear ambitions. Yet it stands squarely in the dock as the major funder of terrorism. How shall we have a dialogue with such a country? Who will take the lead in trying to talk to Iran?
	Whenever I am faced with these issues, I feel somewhat old-fashioned and dated. I belong to a generation that thought that we could settle disputes by the international rule of law and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Yet each day we see people who believe that being marginalised by those who think that those disputes can be settled by military action and by violence, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
	That is why I return to the Prime Minister. It is important that we do not allow moderate views to be squeezed out by those, whether they be Islamic fundamentalists or American neocons, who think that they can set the world to their own particular idea of right. I believe that the Prime Minister has a much larger role than he seems to give himself. I do not want to see him as a Sherpa for American Presidents or Secretaries of State; I want to see him using his undoubted international stature to be active in bringing some sense and reason to this situation. He knows that, if he does, he will have support from across this House and the country.

Baroness Amos: I shall try to respond to the points raised. If, however, I miss any out, I undertake to write to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, or to the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
	We are very concerned about the role of Syria and Iran. Through their support for Hezbollah, those countries are encouraging extremism, threatening the stability of the region and putting peace in the Middle East further out of reach. On what the UK Government can do particularly about Syria, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, might have missed the fact that we no longer have ministerial contact with the Syrian Government since the murder of Rafiq Hariri. However, we will continue to work with others who can put pressure on Iran and Syria and, through them, on Hezbollah.
	The G8 statement makes it absolutely clear that there was support from all G8 countries for a stabilisation force. Clearly, there is an issue about the relationship between that force and the current UN force in Lebanon, which has a role in monitoring. At the Security Council on Thursday this week, all these issues will be discussed and looked at further. The important thing is that we want all sides to stop the fighting.
	On the issue of our citizens, we, the United States, France and Canada probably have the largest numbers of nationals in Lebanon. We think we have about 10,000, plus as many more who are dual Lebanese citizens. The arrangements that we put in place in case every one of those individuals wants to leave have to be robust, safe and secure. That is being co-ordinated through my right honourable friend Adam Ingram. The MoD, the Foreign Office and all the relevant parts of government are working together on this. I can assure noble Lords that we are doing much of the international co-ordination and are working very closely with our EU colleagues.
	Obviously, we have to work closely with the Government of Cyprus. They have worked closely with us on this. It happens to be the holiday period in Cyprus, so they are also dealing with a large number of holidaymakers. However, I must say to the House that they have dealt with this extremely impressively. Our plan is to charter aircraft from Cyprus to bring individuals back to the United Kingdom.
	I can say more about the number of British naval ships that are close to Beirut. We will continue the evacuation in the coming days, but things are moving fast and I have no doubt that we will issue a Written Statement to the House if there are any more developments.
	On energy security, the G8 made a number of things clear: the importance of the increased diversification of sources of energy; the fact that nuclear power has a role to play; the focus on renewables and alternative energy sources; and the importance of an inclusive dialogue post-2012 to include China and India. This builds very closely on the Gleneagles dialogue, and I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that we were very pleased that what came out of this year's G8 summit mirrored so much of what came out of our own energy review.
	On the wider issues relating to Russia, which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned, I understand that there were robust and frank discussions about G8 values, human rights issues, the need for G8 countries to be open to criticism and therefore the importance of having independent media and an independent judiciary. These were not reflected in the communiqué, but these discussions were held and included a discussion of the situation in Chechnya.
	On Iran, to which the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde, referred, there is a plan for a UN Security Council resolution on Iran's nuclear programme in the next 10 days or so. As to who will continue that dialogue with Iran, we would like the Iranians to respond to what we thought was a very generous package from the European Union. If it does not respond positively to that package, we will have to look at this issue again and think about how we continue the dialogue.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked about the quartet, which we see as the custodians of the road map. We want a ceasefire and an end to hostilities, but this needs to happen on all sides. I think that we would all agree that we cannot only look to Israel in that respect.
	I assure the House that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others will continue to work extremely hard to bring about a resolution in the region. This issue has personally engaged the Prime Minister for many years. I remind the House that on 4 July he said to the Liaison Committee,
	"unless we manage to get the situation into a different position then the Israelis are going to continue to take punitive action and the Palestinians are going to continue to have a burning sense of injustice. Now I have learned enough about this situation over the years to realise that going in and condemning either side is not deeply helpful ... What frustrates me more than anything else about the Israeli-Palestinian situation is there is no agreement about the final outcome".
	My right honourable friend has been dealing with these issues for many years, and he will continue to exert all the influence that he can to ensure that we make progress.
	On trade and the deadlock, my right honourable friend chose his words very carefully when he talked about those at the summit who were prepared to go further in the trade negotiations and to deal with them flexibly. On the basis of that agreement, Pascal Lamy had a meeting last night with the G6 countries. I do not know what the conclusions of that meeting were, but next month will be critical. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I, too, am old-fashioned and I cannot say how much it pains me that those who want to negotiate and who have moderate voices on these issues are being squeezed out by the terrorists. We must do all that we can to ensure that the conclusion of the crisis in the Middle East is one that we want and not one that we would all find it impossible to support.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and her answers, and welcome the impetus given to the trade talks in Geneva. Will the Minister give an assurance that the British Government and, through them, the EU will at the right moment encourage Pascal Lamy to come forward with his own set of tie-breaking proposals? That is only too likely to be the only way of ensuring that there is not yet another deadlock. Given that the Director-General of the WTO does not have the power of initiative in this, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows, he needs encouragement. I noticed that the list that she gave of those who have given encouragement so far did not include the head of state of Monsieur Lamy's own country. No doubt that was not fortuitous.
	My second question involves a matter not in the Statement but in the documents, for which I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me. I regard as a major step forward the effort that is now going on at the International Atomic Energy Agency to work up a scheme for guaranteed supply of enrichment and reprocessing services. We have gone from having a situation in which there were no proposals on the table to one in which there now appear to be three proposals, which is probably two too many. However, will the Government give a high priority to getting agreement at the IAEA on such a scheme, recognising that this is a crucial element—particularly in the light of the large amount of nuclear build that is likely to take place in the coming years—in ensuring that proliferation risks do not increase?

Baroness Amos: First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on the issue of encouraging Pascal Lamy, that my understanding is that he is already thinking about the possibility of coming forward with his own set of proposals, given the deadlock that there has been so far in the talks. As we are extremely keen to see these talks move forward, I am sure that we would encourage him to go in that direction should there be no other way of progressing.
	On the second issue, I have to confess to the House that the IAEA is not a matter that I know a great deal about. My understanding is that we are very positive about the moves so far. I am absolutely sure that we would want to see one of these proposals agreed. In that sense, we would want to give high priority to it.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, we should not be surprised that terrorism is used in the Middle East. After all, Israel was established by terror, by the blowing up of Deir Yassin, by the hanging of British sergeants in an orange grove in Beersheba, and by the Stern gang riding through Jaffa saying to the Arabs, "You must all leave with the British". Two million Arabs have been removed from Palestine. Not surprisingly, they are cross about it.
	We must understand what drives people. I am not making a judgment; I am stating historical fact. Unfortunately, that injustice of 2 million Arabs being asked to leave has not been addressed for 60 years. Something has to be done about it. A much less intransigent territorial dispute, that between Germany and France over Alsace-Lorraine, took place between 1685, when the French nicked it, and 1945, when the Germans finally gave up wanting it back. That was a minor dispute compared with what is going on in the Middle East. We must be less sloppy about using the word "terrorism". One man's terrorism is another man's freedom fight. If you see that terrorism has worked in the other guy's hands, you are likely to use it yourself. I make no moral judgment, but draw the House's attention to the historical facts.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think we agree that there are different ways in which to read history. I know that from my own background and, indeed, from my presence in this House. The impact of colonialism and imperialism on countries in the Caribbean is viewed in very different ways in the country where I was born from how it is understood in the United Kingdom, so it is absolutely right that we appreciate how people understand their history. But our responsibility now as politicians is to seek a way through what is a highly complicated, emotive and deeply sensitive issue. That lies at the core of our responsibility. I make no judgment in terms of whether we should be surprised at what is happening in the Middle East, but we should seek to use the influence and power we have as a nation, working with those around us, to try to find a solution. That will not be easy, especially given the deep-rooted and deep-seated historical nature of this crisis.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, moving to the current terrible situation, the Leader of the House will know that for every day that there is not a ceasefire, scores more innocent civilians will be killed in Israel, in Lebanon and in Gaza. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether the United Kingdom Government are solidly behind the call for a ceasefire, and in particular what consideration has been given to the proposal made by the Prime Minister of Lebanon that Hezbollah should withdraw back to the Litani river, thus creating a situation of ceasefire because it could no longer reach key towns in Israel? Can she tell us whether that proposal, made by a Government very much under threat—but, as she observed, democratically elected—has been seriously considered at the G8 Summit?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, all the proposals which have been put forward over the past few days have been looked at either in formal or informal discussions in a number of ways. Of course we want a ceasefire; that is our top priority. But it has to involve the participation of all sides in the conflict. Therein lies a major problem because those countries which have an influence on Hezbollah are fuelling the conflict. At this point they are not remotely interested in moving forward in a negotiated way.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. With my hat on as the chair of Christian Aid, can I encourage the Government in the G8 process with the aid/trade/debt cycle that was begun last year and on which there is a still a long journey to travel? In the midst of all the other issues that are lurking, I hope that we shall not lose energy around that.
	I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to comment on the wider issues at stake here. Again without making any judgments because we all understand the huge political complexity surrounding these things, does she accept that there is potentially a lethal cocktail at work in all this, one made up, first, with the despair of millions of people who have been displaced in the Middle East? I have met some who are still carrying in their pockets the keys to their houses from nearly60 years ago. Secondly, the reality is that we are dealing with predominantly young societies with the future in front of them, so despair is a very lethal force in the Middle East. Thirdly—and the noble Baroness might like to comment on this with regard to the G8 summit—there is an impression that the leaders in the G8 are not entirely in agreement among themselves about what to do. That leads to a sense of impotence. When you have despair and impotence at work, is that not the sort of lethal cocktail which drives people into the hands of those who present other sorts of solutions, ones sadly involving violence and damage to innocent people?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with respect to the issues of aid, trade and debt, which I forgot to mention in my opening response, I can tell the right reverend Prelate that we are not losing energy on those issues. We always knew that this was a year of consolidation and implementation. Many of the commitments made at the G8 last year run to 2010 or 2015. Therefore, it is important for us to have a clear plan in terms of how we will deliver on those commitments.
	I have to tell the House that since last year 21 countries have already qualified for 100 per cent debt relief. We hope to add to that list another five African countries. We have seen the education fast-track initiative take off and we want to develop long-term educational development plans for 10 countries. In addition, of course, there is the commitment to ensure that further funding is found for the Global Fund on HIV and AIDS.
	On the wider situation in the Middle East, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. Sixty per cent of the population is under 25 years of age — a young population for whom in our own country we would want to see the benefits of the development of education and a secure future. That is what we are all fighting for in this region.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, are we to understand that there was no mention at all of Zimbabwe either in the conference or in the margins of the conference? If that is correct, is it not rather extraordinary, given the importance that the Prime Minister has attached to the whole of Africa over the past few years? Considering the absolutely appalling conditions in Zimbabwe, which get worse every week, is it not surprising in relation to the credibility of the treaties that the African countries have signed to exercise human rights, the rule of law and good governance? Is it not also relevant that, after many years, the Government of Zimbabwe have not yet replied to the biting criticism made by the Human Rights Commission of the African Union of conditions in Zimbabwe? Should not these matters have been raised?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, Zimbabwe was not discussed. I do not find that extraordinary, precisely for the reasons that the noble Lord has just set out. If you look at the whole of Africa, you are talking about 53 countries, of which Zimbabwe is one. In the light of the G8 agenda and the agenda of the continent itself with respect to the New Partnership for Africa's Development, and in the light of the peer review mechanism, where we have seen Ghana and Rwanda go through a very intense period of having their economies, political systems and governance looked at, we have seen the stable transition from one democratically elected Government to another, we have seen conflicts resolved, but where we have a continuing difficult situation in the Sudan, it would be absolutely wrong to focus on Zimbabwe as an example of what is happening in the entire African continent.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister feel that the G8 summit adequately addressed the catastrophic issue of AIDS? Last year the G8 gave the very welcome commitment that all who needed treatment should be in receipt of it by 2010. Warm words were expressed at this summit, but little by way of action that could be charted. Indeed, the concentration on infectious diseases tended to emphasise, if anything, the flu pandemic, which obviously does not at the moment threaten the same number of people as does the AIDS crisis.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, last year, a very clear set of actions was set out with respect to HIV/AIDS, which is precisely what I meant in responding to the right reverend Prelate about the importance of monitoring and implementation. At this year's summit, part of what the G8 did was to look at the replenishment of the global fund on HIV/AIDS and make a commitment that those replenishment rounds would be fully met. There is a plan for HIV/AIDS looking forward to 2010. What happened this year was part of the monitoring of that plan. I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness setting out the detail if it would be helpful.

Lord Monson: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government quietly urge the Israelis to be more careful and selective in their retaliation against Hezbollah? Killing more than 200 civilians, only a small proportion of whom are Hezbollah supporters and a high proportion of whom are children, and causing hundreds of millions of pounds of damage to the Lebanese infrastructure which was so laboriously built up after the long years of civil war, is hardly likely to win friends for the West or to lead to a long-term peaceful settlement.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to the statement by the G8 because it absolutely addresses his point. It states:
	"It is also critical that Israel, while exercising the right to defend itself, be mindful of the strategic and humanitarian consequences of its actions. We call upon Israel to exercise utmost restraint, seeking to avoid casualties among innocent civilians and damage to civilian infrastructure and to refrain from acts that would destabilize the Lebanese government".

Lord Elton: My Lords, the Statement mentions urgent work on inserting an international security presence in which no doubt we shall be involved. The Statement comes hard on the heels of another on reinforcements to Afghanistan in which the strain on our resources was illustrated by the fact that we were counting platoons that we send out in reserve. The House is anxious about that. Can the Leader assure us that we shall be kept informed of any commitments of significant size that are intended in this instance?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I recognise the anxiety in the House on this issue. Of course we will keep the House informed. This was an idea put to G8 members which they endorsed in their statement. It will be looked at in detail at the UN. As noble Lords know, there is already a UN force in Lebanon. The role of any such force and where resources should come from need to be discussed and debated. I undertake that the House will be kept informed of those discussions.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I welcome very much the statement concerning the Doha round. If we remind ourselves that this round of negotiations has been going on since 2001, to have now a deadline of one month is at least a challenge to the international community. I am very aware also that we have one year now during which the President of the United States has his fast-track authority to agree such deals.
	However, we have a problem with the European Union. How does the Leader of the House feel that the British Government will influence even the European Union to ensure that the Trade Commissioner has sufficient authority in this last month to make sure that this deal happens? Apart from the immediate challenges of the Middle East, which are huge, this is one of the most important elements of the G8 discussions over the past weekend.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the time that this has taken. I take very slight comfort from the fact that the Uruguay round took much longer before it was completed. On the British Government's role with respect to the European Union, the noble Lord will know that it is not just a case of influencing the European Union and the Trade Commissioner. The Trade Commissioner is operating on behalf of 25 EU countries. Part of our responsibility is to influence our EU colleagues. Having been involved in some of these discussions myself over time, I know that that is not always as easy as it should be.

Education and Inspections Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 7.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 66:
	Page 7, line 23, at end insert-
	"(6A) The Secretary of State may by order suspend the operation of this section in relation to invitations by local education authorities of proposals for the establishment of an Academy during such period as may be appropriate for the evaluation of the success or otherwise of Academies in achieving high standards."

Baroness Walmsley: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 88, which is grouped with it. The amendments seek to place a prudent and sensible brake on the irresistible march of the academies project and ensure that where one is being is considered the local authority must have regard to the impact on the other schools in the area and not just consult them. Any bright shiny new school is going to be attractive to parents andpupils but in the current climate of falling rolls the impact on other schools will be even greater. The Government say that they want parents to have choice, but without the amendments they could end up taking choices away from parents and children through the closure of other schools that might become unsustainable.
	Amendment No. 66 asks for a proper evaluation of the existing academies before any more are established. Given that handing over £20 million and the control of the school to some unknown body that does not necessarily have any track record in running an educational establishment is a radical step, I would have thought that a proper evaluation was only a reasonable and prudent measure to take. The Education and Skills Select Committee in another place reported last year on academies after a two-year inquiry into secondary education. It questioned the average £7,000 per pupil extra cost of establishing an academy and described the current programme asan untested model. It recommended a halt to the programme pending proper evaluation given its lack of coherent strategy, inflated cost and the impact of academies on neighbouring schools.
	Many but not all of the academies take over failing schools and we on these Benches are not averse to directing extra resources towards helping the pupils in such schools to achieve their full educational potential: quite the reverse. We believe that we should spend more on them, as long as the money is carefully and wisely spent. But we question the wisdom of throwing quite so much money at a set of managers who have not yet proved themselves. Why do the Government think that being able to run a large retailer, manufacturer, service industry business, charity or Formula 1 motor racing competition qualifies a person to run a school? Of course it is accepted wisdom that the leadership in a school is an important factor in its success, but by leadership we usually mean the head and management team, not some person or organisation that promises £2 million funding to sponsor a school and then does not deliver it, as many of them have not.
	The Select Committee found that the link between schools with different kinds of governance and improving standards was not proven. We have to look at the intake. Academies showed mixed results and many were below the national average at key stages 3 and 4. Many academies take over low attaining schools but they do not all show the progress that we should be able to expect at such a high cost. The cost is not just financial; the loss of accountability to the local community and the impact on other schools should be added to the financial cost.
	The Times Educational Supplement recently analysed the GCSE results of academies using the new measure of including English, maths and science in the benchmark of A to C grades. In 2005, only 16 per cent of academy pupils achieved that; an increase of only 3 per cent on predecessor schools. Two of the three longest opening academies had worse results on the new measure than the schools they replaced. When GNVQs were removed, the percentage fell by at least half in eight of the 14 academies studied. At Walsall Academy the achievement of five good A to C grades slumped from 67 per cent to 7 per cent when the Times Educational Supplement used that measure. That calls into question the use of GNVQs in skewing the apparent achievements of some schools. Research undertaken by York University quoted by the Select Committee suggests that academies are raising their standards by improving their intake rather than by doing better with the same pupils, which is what they are supposed to do.
	Even Ofsted has suggested that standards in some academies, such as Unity City Academy in Middlesbrough and West London academy are a cause for concern. The Government make two conflicting arguments: on the one hand they argue that academies need more time to improve having taken over failing schools; on the other hand they argue that academy results are so good that they need to push on to expansion without delay. They cannot have it both ways. Which of these is true? If academies need more time to improve, why is not the same time to be given to our maintained schools that are failing?
	All in all, academies are an unproven model—and it would be reasonable for the Secretary of State to halt their expansion until the various factors that contribute to their success for failure are properly evaluated. When that evaluation is done, it should be done on accepted scientific principles of comparing like with like. It would be only fair to compare each academy's performance with that of a similar school under normal local authority governance in a similar locality that had had the same amount of money thrown at it. Indeed, my Liberal Democrat colleagues in Liverpool have already volunteered some of their schools for such an experiment. They would welcome the extra money, and they are confident that given the same resource they could do at least as well as any academy, and probably better. Will the Minister take up that challenge?
	In his response to Amendment No. 16 on the first day in Committee last week, the Minister said that the Government's structure of academies was more likely to raise standards. What shred of evidence does he have to justify such a claim? There has been no study to justify any such statement. If there is no evidence, I call on him to accept Amendment No. 66 forthwith and to commission a fair study with a level playing field to see whether such evidence exists anywhere, except in the Prime Minister's dreams. I beg to move.

Lord Judd: Lying behind Amendment No. 184 is the concern that we in the Joint Committee on Human Rights registered about this part of the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to make all the relevant statutory protections for pupils at maintained schools available to pupils at academies and city technology colleges.
	The committee was deeply concerned about whether there would be the same protection for pupils at city technology colleges and academies. We wrote to the Minister and, as I have said before, received a very full, considerate and detailed reply from him, which we very much appreciated. In that reply, the Government's position seems to remain that academies and CTCs should not be defined as maintained schools. The Government's position is that they are regulated not through statutory requirements but rather through funding agreements with the Secretary of State.
	As we understand it, the Government suggest that it is incorrect to put forward the view that the protections offered to the pupils are inferior. On exclusion, for example, the Government argue that the model academy funding agreement requires the academy to have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance on exclusions as if the academy were a maintained school and requires that appeals panels must be impartial and constituted in accordance with that guidance. As we understand it, too, the Government argue that the same principles apply to SEN and admissions, and they hold to the same argument that, although the arrangements may be different in detail, in effect the pupils are at no disadvantage. Most academies have adopted the model academy funding agreement without any amendment.
	The committee welcomed the Minister's response in so far as it implicitly accepted, in principle, that protections enjoyed by pupils at academies and CTCs in relation to exclusions, admissions and SEN should be no less than those enjoyed by pupils at maintained schools. We also recognised from the Minister's reply that the Government accept the importance of the rights that are at stake—for example, the right to a fair hearing before being permanently excluded from school, and the importance of not treating pupils at academies and CTCs less favourably than pupils at other state schools in respect of their enjoyment of rights such as the right to a fair hearing.
	Now we come to the rub. Having gone so far in welcoming the Minister's reply, we remained unconvinced by it, which is what led me and my colleagues to table Amendment No. 184. We are not persuaded that regulating academies and CTCs through their funding agreements with the Secretary of State is conducive to ensuring that equivalent protections are enjoyed by the pupils at those institutions. I want very briefly to give the three examples that we gave in our report, which I commend and which I am sure all noble Lords have read in great detail. Just to indicate how hard we work in that committee, I should say that it is the 21st report of the current Session.
	First, the model funding agreement suggests having a term in the agreement providing that, in discharging their duties, the head and governors will have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance on exclusions, as if academies are maintained schools. As the Government appear to have accepted in the context of the admissions code, a duty to have regard to guidance is very much weaker than a positive requirement to act in accordance with guidance. It seems to us that there is a problem. It is a formulation that presupposes that departures from guidance may, in the end, be justifiable.
	Secondly, even where actual funding agreements contain the wording recommended in the model agreement, the agreement itself might contain certain provisions that are inferior to the protections available at maintained schools. The funding agreement between the Secretary of State and Haberdashers' Aske's Knights Academy, for example, specifically provides for a final right of appeal to the governors against permanent exclusion, but the governors are clearly incapable of being an independent and impartial tribunal.
	Thirdly, whereas a maintained school is required by statute to admit a child with a statement of special educational needs, there is no equivalent requirement on academies to do the same. It is because of those points that we are anxious that the Minister should look at this again to see whether the Government can move further to give substance to their general claim that pupils at such institutions are at no disadvantage. Certainly, we in the Joint Committee on Human Rights are not convinced on that point.

Lord Lucas: The two Liberal Democrat amendments in the group seem a little inconsistent, at least in what they propose, because the Liberals, having been long-term opponents of league tables,are now inventing their own to beat academies about the head with. Similarly, having been long-term proponents of vocational education, they now spurn academies because that is the direction in which they have turned. Inconsistency and Liberal Democrats—perhaps I should expect them to go together.
	I support some aspects of Amendment No. 184. I particularly want to press the Minister on the Freedom of Information Act. The Department for Education and Skills is a difficult department when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act. The central part of the department is extremely helpful and co-operative, and I cannot think of a better department, but some of its important offshoots are exempt, the principal one being UCAS, which I know is quasi-independent. Universities are in; the department is in; schools are in—but UCAS is out.
	A lot of information flows from schools directly to examining bodies—for instance, about exemptions that have been given to pupils in respect of SEN—but it is not available under the Freedom of Information Act because it does not stick to any government department, but goes directly to the examining boards, which are, in that sense, providing a government function on a commercial basis and are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
	Along with such anomalies, it would be very useful to clear up any lack of transparency with respect to academies, city technology colleges and/or their funding agreements and to bring those institutions into line with the generality of schools and educational institutions. I do not imagine that that can be done through a funding agreement. I would be happy to be corrected, but I would be surprised if a funding agreement could give the rights and the detail of rights that are available to a citizen under the Freedom of Information Act.

Baroness Morgan of Huyton: To talk about city academies and the need for a level playing field is to approach the matter in the wrong way, because the main reason for the existence of city academies is that there is not a level playing field. City academies are being established where there is failure; they are being established where kids are not getting a fair chance of a decent education, where schools are profoundly failing those children or where there are no schools and we are seeking to set up new schools to meet the needs of the most disadvantaged children. If one looks at any figures that have been produced, although one does not see improvements across the piece, one sees in most of the schools clear improvements in behaviour, attendance and standards. Perhaps the clearest indication of that is that the schools tend to have waiting lists. We have talked a lot today about parental choice. It is evident that parents are choosing to send their children to these schools, which suggests that we are getting something right in them.
	I was interested to hear about the situation in Liverpool. The new city academy that has been set up there by the Anglican and Catholic Churches is innovative; it is worth visiting, if the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has not yet done so. However, my understanding is that, while her colleagues in Liverpool may be asking for another report, her colleagues in Southwark are moving ahead very quickly with city academies and are commissioning their third, if not their fourth, academy. They have recognised that city academies are the best way of meeting the needs of their inner-city children.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, because he is a highly intelligent Member of the Committee and I know that he would appreciate that, as my noble friend Lady Walmsley said, the basis of comparison must be the same. However much one welcomes GNVQs—I certainly do and I know that she does—they are not on the same footing as GCSEs of the traditional kind. She simply pointed out, without making any suggestion that GNVQs were not a valuable qualification, that on a comparison of like with like the evidence that has come forward so far is not to the effect that city academies have far outstripped community schools. However, we on these Benches believe that it is important that enough time is given to ensure that, exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, schools that can assist children in the most disadvantaged areas are given a fair wind. We are not yet convinced on the basis of the evidence that is coming forward that an absolutely clear case has been made.
	With regard to Amendment No. 184, to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred, I further strengthen his case by saying that there is some reason to believe—indeed, there is evidence to show—that the proportion of excluded children is rather higher in academies and CTCs than in the average run of maintained schools. That suggests all the more strongly that it is vital that the same requirements are laid on both with regard to excluded children, and not least to children with special educational needs, so that schools in both categories respond to these cases as forthrightly as they can.

Lord Lucas: Of course I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about GNVQs and so on. The point that I was trying to make is that, as soon as you start reducing things to league tables, you miss the real comparison. If we want children to learn English, maths and science to a reasonable level, it is surely possible that that is better delivered to some children with a vocational element attached to it, rather than by purely academic qualifications that have become quite debased.

Lord Plant of Highfield: I, too, am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and my name is on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I will speak briefly in support of what he said. I do not doubt the Government's commitment to ensuring that the protections for academy pupils are not lower than those for pupils in maintained schools. Given that commitment, the crux of the question is whether the funding agreement is the best vehicle for securing it. I share the qualms of Members of the Committee about the detail of those model agreements and so forth. There must be some doubt over whether the agreements can deliver what the Government seek. I therefore strongly support the amendment.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I add my voice to those supporting Amendment No. 184. What the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said raised some concerns in my own mind. I take entirely what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said about the good track record of academies thus far, and the important point that parents are choosing for their children to go to such schools. However, I do not see that as a reason for children at academies having fewer rights, especially those children with special educational needs, about whom we on these Benches—and I think noble Lords right across the Committee—are concerned. I hope that we will have some further reassurance from the Minister.

Baroness Buscombe: I am compelled to refer to Amendments Nos. 66 and 88 on academies. They look remarkably similar to those already debated in the Commons. It is clear, I fear, that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to the autonomy and independence that are the driving force in the concept of the academy school. The spirit of localism so often claimed by the noble Baroness's party as their own is somewhat betrayed in this approach. It seems that localism is all very well in so far as it enforces state bureaucracies at a local level, but that it does not extend to the level of a local school.
	These amendments revisit old ground. The same amendments were debated at great length in the eighth sitting of the Committee in another place. I do not want to rehash that debate; it has already been undertaken in Parliament. Indeed, the honourable Member for Brent East—whose amendments I think they were—promised to go away and work on the topic. Even so, the amendments in front of us today remain completely unchanged. Indeed, the honourable Member herself admitted that Amendment No. 66 is technically flimsy.
	Amendment No. 88, on the other hand, would give powers to the local authority to prevent an academy from being set up. Members of another place have already conceded our points on this debate. The honourable Member Annette Brooke, of the noble Baroness's party, stated that she agreed with many of the points made by my honourable friend Nick Gibb. The Minister, Jacqui Smith, rightly stated that the Liberal Democrat argument was based on the false premise that the approach to and achievements of academies were unproven.
	I do not want to detain the Committee, but it is important to defend and, in a sense, champion academies' achievements to date. I shall try to be brief. PricewaterhouseCoopers' second annual report on academies shows that the independent ethos of academies is helping to drive up standards:
	"A very clear and significant finding from the early research is that there does seem to be a significant difference in the learning culture in new Academies compared to their predecessors. For example, 8 out of 10 pupils in the survey said that the 'teachers at this academy really believe that all pupils can achieve'. Similar numbers of staff surveyed said 'Staff at this academy believe that all pupils can achieve regardless of their social background'".
	We should bear in mind, as the noble Baroness,Lady Morgan, said, the fact that these schools are being set up in areas where pupils have been failed by the state in the past.
	The Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments that would consult pupils on matters affecting schools, which shows a clear pupil endorsement. However, I wonder whether they would be so keen to listen to those pupils who endorse academies. Those pupils and teachers of academies are evidence of a part of the potential of academies. The National Audit Office report Improving poorly performing schools in England cites the statistics of success:
	"Key Stage 3 test results for 14-year olds at academies improved faster than the national average: 9 per cent in English and mathematics compared with a national average improvement of 6 and 7 per cent in English and mathematics respectively".
	What is more, of the three academies that had been open for more than a year in 2004, all had improved GSCE performance.
	We can see the vast improvements in standards made by CTCs since their inception—a useful evidential analogy, given the structural similarity. CTCs benefit the most disadvantaged in our society. While the proportion of pupils on free school meals who achieved the magic five A* to C grades at GCSE in 2004 was 16.8 per cent in community schools, CTCs produced the amazing result of 58.3 per cent of such children achieving that. The academy scheme is in its earliest years, yet it is already showing wonderful promise and giving children the best chances in life. Let us not forget that we sanctioned the different legal regulation of academies, with full parliamentary scrutiny, in the Education Act 2002. Academies are kept in check by the terms of their funding agreements, and cannot go outside the admissions code of practice. We should give them a chance.
	I know that the Minister will have a lot more to say in support of academies. In essence, I will never support measures that would halt the contribution towards greater freedom, more efficient management and much higher standards in our schools. These amendments should not be supported.

Lord Adonis: No argument causes me moredistress than the one put by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that I should be incoherent or inconsistent in my arguments. I hope at least that the Government are clear and consistent in their arguments. There is no inconsistency whatever in simultaneously arguing that academies that have taken over from some of the most challenging and lowest-performing schools in the country are improving—which they are, above national average rates—and that they have not magically become among the best schools in the country in the short time that they have been open.
	We do not have to look at our expectations for the future in a hypothetical way, let alone a completely unscientific one, to take the noble Baroness's claim. We can look at two specific, strongly encouraging pieces of evidence. The first is the experience of the city technology colleges, which have now been in existence for 15 years. I am a great believer in evidence-based policy. In my experience of education policy, there are few areas of innovation that have yielded more tangible, beneficial results than the experience of city technology colleges. If the noble Baroness has not visited any, I encourage her to do so. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who was the moving force in their establishment. Their success is shown in the work of Professor David Jesson, who found the city technology colleges to be the sub-group of secondary schools with the most substantial value added of all the groups of secondary schools that he analysed. I will send the noble Baroness the data. With academies, we have broadly sought to take the city technology college model but to apply it much more resolutely to areas of disadvantage than was the case with the city technology colleges.
	The second piece of evidence supporting the progress of new academies is the evaluation undertaken to date. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was quite wrong in suggesting that there had been no evaluation. Onthe contrary, my department has paid veryconsiderable sums—as it does to consultancies—to PricewaterhouseCoopers to conduct an annual evaluation of the academies programme. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, quoted from the second annual evaluation, which was published last year. I understand that the third one will be available shortly.
	The evaluation as a whole gives a highly positive picture of the progress made by academies. It concluded that there was a significant difference in the learning culture in new academies compared with their predecessor schools, with, for example, 97 per cent of staff thinking that the principal really believes that the academy can make a difference to pupils' learning whatever their family backgrounds; with 90 per cent of the parents who named an academy as their school of choice attracted by the high academic and teaching standards of the academy; with 87 per cent of parents satisfied with the quality of the education provided to their children at the academy; with 85 per cent of pupils stating that they were pleased with their school work and had high expectations; and with 90 per cent of parents agreeing that most pupils liked going to the academy and that their children enjoyed attending the school. The report goes on to make an important point about governance. It says that the new academies have 78 per cent of staff agreeing that the sponsor brings expertise that would not otherwise be available to the academy, and 82 per cent of staff agreeing that the sponsor's resources have a positive impact on pupils' learning.
	I never like to leave an argument unreplied to, so I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and copy to other Members of the Committee my response to each of the assertions that she made about academy performance, because I can meet them all. That is in no way seeking to claim that the academies that have taken over from weak or failing schools have been able to turn around performance to become highly successful overnight. That is not the case; the issue is the rate of improvement that they had been able to make. Evaluation has taken place. The great majority of Ofsted reports have been satisfactory or excellent, leading Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, David Bell, to say in August last year that, with regard to academies, in some cases what has been achieved in a short time is "nothing less than remarkable". That was said by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, not by a Minister.
	Taking all this evidence in the round, I believe that we are right to proceed with a policy that, let us be clear, is focused at one of the most intractable areas of educational reform—that of bringing good schools to areas that have had low, and often chronically low, standards not only for years but often for generations. There is nothing that this Labour Government should take more pride in than that we are targeting investment and reform together, not simply thinking that we can put the money into areas that have been failed so consistently in the past. My noble friend Lady Morgan has been engaged in the academy movement through the outstanding work of ARK, a charity that brings great expertise to this area. The proof of the pudding is in parental views and whether parents are prepared to apply to academies for their children. The evidence is highly encouraging.
	Amendment No. 88 would require local authorities to have regard to the potential effect of academies on other schools in the area. In point of fact, local consultation is already required in the development of every academy proposal. All those with an interest must be consulted, including neighbouring schools, FE colleges and sixth forms. Decision makers, including local authorities, when deciding whether to support an academy proposal, take into account the effects of proposals on other provision in their area.
	I will depart from my normal practice and make just a small party-political point in passing. I am glad to say that what I have just said includes Liberal Democrat authorities, many of which have been very strong supporters of academies. Indeed, Liberal Democrat authorities account for some 19 academies that are open or under development, including no fewer than eight in Southwark—more than my noble friend suggested. To make an even more developed party-political point, I will add that one of those academies in Southwark will be enthusiastically sponsored, in co-operation with the Liberal Democrat authority, by an editor of The Orange Book—an excellent publication, which I recommend to Liberal Democrats in this House as precisely the positive direction in which they should be moving to catch up with us in new Labour by modernising their approach to public sector reform.
	I will now return to more narrow educational issues. My noble friend Lord Judd spoke passionately about equal protection of the interests of pupils in academies. We believe that adequate protection is afforded. I have written to my noble friend once on this issue, going through each of the areas that he raised in turn. I will do so again, taking the three specific areas that he raised, but I believe that the protection is adequate.
	I say in answer to my noble friend Lord Plant that the funding agreements that govern academies are legally enforceable agreements between the Secretary of State and the academy sponsor. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is quite right about the Freedom of Information Act not being applicable, but that is a matter to do with the wider law. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is about to consult on bringing academies within the coverage of the FOI legislation. The Government believe that that is a welcome development. We have nothing whatever to hide in respect of the activities of academies. Although there will be consultation before the relevant orders are laid, we are favourably disposed towards ensuring that outcome.
	Finally, in respect of the Human Rights Act, I assure my noble friend Lord Judd that academies are, in our view, plainly public authorities under the Act and will thus be subject to the provisions of that Act. That has not yet been tested in court, so I cannot say absolutely categorically what a court would rule, but that is the view of my department's legal advisers.
	I expect that we will return to this matter at a later stage, but I hope that, when I have been able to provide even more information and argumentation in writing, we may be able to dispel some of the arguments that have been advanced about academies.
	To end on a point made by my noble friend Lady Morgan, in my experience the cure for disliking academies is to visit one. I strongly urge my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches to visit some academies. We have nothing to hide. Some of the most impassioned journalists have taken up the cause against academies on principle because they involve engagement with the private sector and all kinds of horrible things like that, but once they actually see one in action—I can give the noble Baroness a list of academies to visit—they find that the reality of improved educational performance and the palpable difference that is being made to the life chances of children tend to overcome even the most rigid ideology.

Lord Judd: I thank my noble friend for his reply. I think that he is being very candid. However, the devil is often in the detail and he says that he has not had an opportunity to look in detail at the three examples that I gave. I hope therefore that his department will look at them in detail and at the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights following his helpful letter to that committee.
	I have immense respect for my noble friendLady Morgan, but we are not concerned about a level playing field in the sense that she was talking about. We are concerned about a level playing field in terms of the rights of the child. Our point is that the Government have taken very seriously their commitment to the rights of the child and they have made provision in the maintained sector for how those rights should be protected. Our argument is that, in the detail of the legislation, what is seen as necessary in the maintained sector is not 100 per cent followed through in the CTCs and academies.
	We do not doubt the Minister's good will, which he always repeats in his intention and in his letters. He repeated it to the Committee again this evening and I accept his sincerity of purpose in this respect. Our argument is that his purpose is not being fulfilled by the detail of the provision. Therefore, I hope that he will go away and see whether he can make adjustments to meet the concerns that have been expressed. To add one other point on special educational needs, I am perhaps going a little beyond the discipline that I have set myself in commenting on the Minister's reply, but it seems unfortunate that academies should not be subject to exactly the same obligations as everybody else is.

Baroness Walmsley: This has been an interesting debate and I thank the Minister for his response and other noble Lords for their comments. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is not in its place—

Lord Baker of Dorking: He is over there.

Baroness Walmsley: I am so sorry; the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is not in his usual place—he has taken up residence on the Cross Benches for the moment. I wonder when anybody said that academies were vocational schools.
	We on these Benches are very enthusiastic about vocational education but we think that it should be available to all children through secondary schools and not just city technology colleges, which we accept have done great things.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that I have not said we oppose all academies. We just want to see the evidence through a proper dispassionate study, rather than rushing headlong. Although some parents are very enthusiastic in wanting academies in their area, in some areas parents are rejecting academies. That is their choice and I would stand up and fight for their right to make that choice.
	The noble Baroness commented on Southwark. Responsible local authorities will of course say yes to shiny new schools and millions of extra pounds and if academies are the only way of getting those things for their local children, they will grab them with both hands, and so they should. It is their responsibility to do the very best for the children in their area. There has been no lack of co-operation from the local authority in Liverpool in the establishment of the academy that she mentioned. Liberal Democrat authorities have not been obstructive to the expansion of the academy programme but when we have a policy like this, which is using a great deal of public money, we want to see the evidence.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that if she wants to know Liberal Democrat policy, she should ask a Liberal Democrat and not just believe what she hears from somebody from another party. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report—

Baroness Buscombe: It is what I read in Hansard from the debates that took place in the House of Commons.

Baroness Walmsley: I accept from her that in this House, as in another place, people from different parties will agree with parts of what other people say, but the basis of the amendments we are tabling is that we are asking for the evidence in a dispassionate proper scientific study before we go any further with this programme. If our request for such a report is not accepted, then on the establishment of any academy we would like the local authority to have to "have regard" and not just consult on the effect on any other school.
	The PricewaterhouseCoopers report made some of the comments the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made but it also made other points that were not so complimentary about some academies. I do not deny that individual schools have achieved improvements. I would not want to take one iota away from the achievements of the teachers, the governors, and in particular the children. Others have not done quite so well, but you cannot claim that the PricewaterhouseCoopers report is the cross-cutting report we really need. If academies prove themselves, such a study as I am asking for will give the Government their evidence.
	I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the Conservatives have never tabled the same amendments in this House as in another place if they were not satisfied with the answers they were given. We were not totally satisfied with the answers we were given, and that is why we have tabled the amendments again and had tonight's useful debate.

Baroness Buscombe: I was trying to gently make the point that a number of those amendments were Labour Back-Bench amendments.

Baroness Walmsley: I do not care where they come from if I agree with them—and I did agree with many of the amendments that were tabled by Labour rebels in another place.
	I welcome the statement the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made that there is no magic wand for the academies. It was always going to be the case that some of them were going to struggle with the situation they took over from failing schools. None of us wants to support failing schools to carry on failing but the PricewaterhouseCoopers and the report that he quoted were looking only at the academies themselves. They were not comparing them with similar schools that were given the same amount of money. If any scientist had tried to publish a paper on this basis, the peer review would laugh them out of the profession. If you are going to say that the success of these schools is down to the form of governance they have been given, you must be jolly sure that all the other factors are the same and that the only difference is the system of government. Otherwise it is just hearsay.
	I have been accused of inconsistency in tabling both of these amendments. As I mentioned earlier, Amendment No. 66 asks for proper study and proper proof but we accept that even in your Lordships' House, the wisdom of our remarks is not always accepted and that we may not get that amendment accepted. It is therefore perfectly consistent to ask in Amendment No. 88 that if the programme is not halted pending further proof, each academy application should be accompanied by the local authority having proper regard to the effect on other schools of the establishment of that academy.
	I have one or two very small points to make.The Orange Book is blue-sky thinking and does not represent Liberal Democrat policy. Also, we have been criticised for continuing to put pressure on the Government but that is our job. As an opposition party, we are here to put the Government under pressure. If they are going to put a lot of public money behind something, we must ask them to prove that the money is well spent. That is the job we have to do as an opposition party, rather than just lie down and have our tummy tickled like some domestic pet. That is the job for an opposition party and that is what we will carry on doing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.]
	Clause 8 [Proposals under section 7 relating to community or community special schools]:
	[Amendments Nos. 69 to 72 not moved.]

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 73:
	Page 7, line 45, leave out from "include" to end of line 2 on page 8 and insert "prescribed matters"

Lord Adonis: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 94 to 101, 104, 109, 117 to 120, 124, and 133 to 136. I have written to noble Lords about these amendments so I hope I can be brief.
	I turn first to Amendment No. 73, Clause 8 deals with proposals under Clause 7 relating to community schools. The effect of this amendment is to make it clear that regulations may prescribe matters which the Secretary of State will take into account in deciding whether or not to consent to the publication of proposals for a new community school in a competition.
	The clause as originally drafted referred only to the educational standards of authorities and individual schools and the extent of diversity among the schools. This amendment will allow a wider range of factors to be specified in regulations than would be appropriate on the face of the Bill, and for these to be more easily modified following consultation if this is felt necessary.
	Regulation 7 of the illustrative regulations made available to the Committee indicates the kinds of factors we have in mind. These will include the range of curricular specialisms and the range of extended services offered by schools, as well as the general standards of attainment and the range of special educational needs provision.
	Government Amendments Nos. 94 to 98, 100, 104 and 109 are technical and remedy deficiencies in the drafting of the Bill. The only amendment of substance which I should just say a word about is Amendment No. 97, which provides that a local authority may publish proposals for an increase in the number of pupils admitted to a school. As it stands, the Bill provides only for a local authority to propose an increase in the physical capacity of a school. There may be circumstances in which a local authority wishes to increase the number of pupils admitted to a school without having to enlarge the premises significantly. This amendment brings the Bill into line with existing legislation governing school organisation, which recognises this distinction between a physical enlargement and an increase in the number of pupils admitted to a school.
	Amendments Nos. 99, 101, 117 to 120, 124, 133 to 136 are to protect the assets and the role of existing foundations that support schools. They follow extensive discussions, in particular with the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, which account for the majority of such trusts. They give these trusts broadly the same protection as applied before the Bill. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: I am grateful to the Minister for speaking to these technical amendments. As he said, some of them are in response to points that I made at Second Reading in relation to how the proposals would affect Church schools. I simply express the thanks of the Church of England, and indeed the Roman Catholic authorities, for how he has responded by introducing the amendments, which we believe address the points that I raised. My AmendmentNo. 125 was originally in the group. I have withdrawn it from the Marshalled List because, from conversation with the officers of the department and in the light of reassurances that we have been given, I do not think it is necessary to press it.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister, particularly for putting his name to Amendment No. 104; it was originally our amendment, but he has brought it back as a government amendment. We have before us a group of 20 amendments, so I would like to use this opportunity to make a few comments about how the Bill is being handled.
	The Government have got themselves into a mess. To extract themselves, they are trying to import the practices of another place into your Lordships' House without any discussion or vote about the matter. When asked how many days we needed for Committee on this very contentious Bill, we on these Benches said six. The Government then imposed their own timetable and set four. They added another half day, as they began to see that we were right. They are so anxious to finish Committee before the Recess that they have imposed their own guillotine, without any opportunity for your Lordships to vote on the matter. They have tried all sorts of devices to curtail proper discussion of the Bill, such as wanting to postpone Committee-style discussion of certain sections until Report; wanting the House to sit until midnight, which is totally contrary to what it has voted for; and putting together enormous, unwieldy and often non-homogenous groups of amendments. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has degrouped his amendments from the group of 16 amendments beginning with government Amendment No. 158.
	We are told that we are not doing very well. That does not mean that we are not making good arguments, raising important issues or doing our job of scrutinising the Bill; it means that we are not getting through the business fast enough. It is like, "Never mind the quality, feel the width". The Bill was not fully scrutinised in another place, despite the time that it took over it. Whole sections were dismissed in an hour on the last day. These Benches will play our part in helping this House to carry out its traditional role of scrutinising every part of the Bill, and looking into every corner to ensure fairness and that vulnerable people are protected and human rights upheld. That is what this House does well and, until it ceases to be our job, that is what we will continue to do.
	I hope that the Government will consider the considerable co-operation that we have already given and any co-operation that we may or may not give over the next few days as not establishing any precedent that rides roughshod over the rights and procedures of your Lordships' House.

Baroness Warnock: I am not clear whether Amendment No. 97 means that the local authority will have the ability to insist on the enlargement of a school, or whether the school will be able to refuse to take more pupils. Perhaps particularly in the case of schools mentioned under Clause 19(2) for pupils with special educational needs, it seems important that the governing body and the head determine the size of the school. It seems a great danger to think that, if a school is successful, therefore it ought to enlarge its numbers, because a school's character may be determined by the fact that it is small. Will the Minister kindly clear that up?

Lord Adonis: I think that I need to write to the noble Baroness to give her the categorical answer to her question. I shall speak from my knowledge of decision-making, not from a note, which may be slightly hazardous. My understanding is that, where the school is a community school, the local authority has the power to publish proposals and decide on them. However, where it is another category of school, if the school is not amenable these matters could not be decided by the local authority unilaterally. I shall come back to her.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 9 agreed to.
	Clause 10 [Publication of proposals with consent of Secretary of State]:
	[Amendments Nos. 74 to 78 not moved.]
	Clause 10 agreed to.
	Clause 11 [Publication of proposals to establish maintained schools: special cases]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 79:
	Page 9, line 10, leave out "or"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No. 79, I shall speak to another large group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 80, 82, 85, 86, 90, 93 and 102. Amendments Nos. 79, 80, 82, 85 and 86 relate to aspects of school closures, mergers and consultations about mergers and closures, whereas Amendments Nos. 90, 93 and 102 deal with issues arising from alterations and expansions. I would like to speak first to that first half of the group, and then to move the second half.
	Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 relate to the special case of when two primary schools merge, and seek to probe the Government's thinking on whether that requires a competition to set up a new school. To reduce the tensions that can result from the merger of an infant and junior school, both schools are often closed and reopened as a new school with a new name, rather than one school simply being taken over by another. That matter was raised in a letter dated10 May 2006 to the new Minister for Schools,Jim Knight, by Vernon Coaker MP on behalf of one of his constituents. In his letter of response dated31 May 2006, Jim Knight explained the proposed regulations governing the establishment of a community school and the criteria governing the Secretary of State's consent. He concluded:
	"Proposals for new schools would normally fall under the above procedures, but the Bill does make provision in clause 9 for proposals for new schools, including community schools, outside a competition with the consent of the Secretary of State. We would envisage that mergers of infant and junior schools would not normally require a competition".
	The letter was written after the current version of the Bill was published on 25 May, and it is assumed thatit should have referred to Clause 11 rather than Clause 9. Whichever clause was intended, it would be helpful if the Minister could provide further reassurances about the reorganisation of primary schools in that regard.
	Amendment No. 82 relates to Clause 15(4). At present, that subsection relates only to rural primary schools and largely re-enacts Section 70 of the Education Act 2005, which we argued over at some length in this Chamber about 18 months ago, just before the last general election. Section 70 of that Act was the result of a government defeat in this House and required that, before making a proposal to close a primary school, the relevant body—the local education authority—must take account of the effect of the closure on the local community and on transport.
	We argue that these criteria should be applied not just to rural schools but to any local school. The knock-on effects of closure need to be considered. There needs to be wide consultation, not only with parents but also with local district town and/or parish councils.
	Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 relate to Clause 17 which is concerned with the closure of special schools and seeks to extend the consultation required should the Secretary of State avail himself of the powers granted by this clause to shut a special school. Amendment No. 8 would provide that the consultation should be extended to the parents of children attending the school. Amendment No. 86 also provides that whenhe gives notice of his decision under subsection (4) he sets out the reason for his decision.
	In Committee in the other place the Minister argued that both amendments were unnecessary and that Clause 17(3)(d), which states that consultation should take place with,
	"such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate",
	might be expected to include parents and children attending the school. We respond that "might be expected" is not good enough. Given the emphasis that the Government are putting on parents' views and preferences, and that they also regard the voice of the child to be an important aspect of consultation, we feel that both should be on the face of the Bill as consultees.
	The Government also argued that having to set out the reasons for his decision—as provided in Amendment No. 86—was an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on what might need to be a hasty decision in the interests of the health and safety of the children involved. Again, the amendment does not demand any lengthy report but merely that the reasons for the decision are given in at least summary form when the notice is issued. For a Government who produce so many unnecessary pieces of paper—not to mention unnecessary legislation—I believe that this is not too much to ask.
	Amendments Nos. 90, 93 and 102 deal with the issues arising from alterations and expansions in schools. Amendment No. 90 is a probing amendment to clarify that Clauses 18 to 23, which come under the heading of "Alterations to schools", include the physical alteration of the school premises to accommodate more pupils and to add a sixth form. Those cited in subsection (2) and (4) of Clause 18 are all alterations to governance structures, but since much has been made of encouraging successful schools to expand, it is to be assumed that such expansions are indeed covered by these provisions. What has not been generally publicised is that any such expansion requires—as I understand from subsection (2)—a community school to become a foundation school. I seek clarification from the Minister if that is the case. As we have made clear elsewhere, we have little sympathy with this element of government policy and regret in particular the shift away from governors representing the local community, including elected parent governors, to a governance structure which reflects the aims, aspirations and preferences of those running the foundations.
	We also seek further assurances from the Minister about the role of Building Schools for the Future. When I asked in Committee last week whether they would be using Building Schools for the Future as a lever to encourage schools to become foundation schools and to require them if they were to participate in the programme to become foundation schools, the Minister said very firmly that that was not the case and that there was no intention to use that programme in order to push schools into foundation status. I should be grateful if the Minister would reiterate that statement because it is an important one.
	Amendments Nos. 93 and 102 argue a similar cause. In arguing the case about closures and the need for consultation, I quoted previously the Ofsted report of October 2003, The influence of school place planning on school standards and social inclusion. I do not wish to repeat what I read out previously. In particular, the report warned that allowing popular schools to expand to meet parental demand risks sending an already struggling school into a spiral of decline. Perhaps I may repeat the warning contained in the report: losing a school does not enhance a community. Amendments Nos. 93 and 102 provide that, when expansion is considered, the overall provision of education within the community as a whole should be considered, not just the narrow interests of the particular school or one section of the community. Clause 1 puts the duty on LEAs to promote fair access to educational opportunity and to enable every child to fulfil their educational potential. Yet allowing a free-for-all expansion of popular schools, allowing other schools to wither on the vine, does not necessarily promote fair access and can result in the most disadvantaged being even more disadvantaged. Amendments Nos. 93 and 102 ask, therefore, that when proposals for expansion are being considered, the impact of that expansion on the overall provision of education by the LEA as a whole and by other schools in the area is taken into account.
	There are two important aspects regarding further education colleges: the provision of specialist vocational courses for 14 to 16 year-olds; but also for 16 onwards. Those further education colleges often provide a vital facility. Schools do not have the specialist facilities to provide vocational courses such as construction or hairdressing. It is important—I know that the Government are sympathetic to this—that where schools want to provide such specialist courses they should collaborate with the further education colleges rather than duplicate the facilities. Two sinks stuck in the corner of a domestic science room and the taking on of a part-time hairdresser are not enough to offer a course in hairdressing. It is important that those children are trained using the good facilities which often exist at further education colleges.
	Many who move from school to further education colleges do so because they have not enjoyed school. What is surprising is how often they speak highly of the courses they study at the further education colleges where they retake their GCSEs, study for A-level and often do surprisingly well. In that sense, further education colleges are a very important second-chance saloon for some of the students at our secondary schools. Proposals to expand sixth forms can have knock-on effects on the local colleges—both sixth form and further education colleges. It is important that those knock-on effects are taken into account in considering the expansion of schools. I ask the Minister to confirm the promise that his colleague gave in the other place. On 25 April, Jacqui Smith said:
	"At present, statutory guidance specifies that among those who must be consulted are other local authorities and other schools who may be affected by the proposals, parents and teachers in the area, local dioceses or national faith groups, the Learning and Skills Council and any other interested party, for example the early years development and child care partnership when the proposals affect early years provision".
	The next paragraph states:
	"I accept the hon. Lady's"—
	that is my honourable friend Sarah Teather, the Member for Brent East—
	"argument that FE colleges in the area would have an interest and would therefore need to be consulted. To put that beyond dispute, I am happy to give the Committee an assurance that statutory guidance on consultation for new schools and additions to existing schools under the Bill will specifically include FE colleges in the area as well as schools and the Learning and Skills Council. I hope the hon. Lady finds that assurance satisfactory".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 25/4/06; cols. 373-4.]
	I should like an assurance from the Minister that that will be set into regulations.
	Will the Minister confirm that any expansion plans will be considered within the overall context and implications for the community? Secondly, will he specifically confirm that consultation with FE and sixth-form colleges will be included within the statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State? I beg to move.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the Minister replies, I simply add my voice in support of Amendments Nos. 85 and 86. The discontinuation of a special school is, in many ways, a very special case. Parents of children with special educational needs often put great weight on their relationship with the school and put a great deal of work into trying to make that school and their child meet one another's needs. While it may well be possible that the Bill will deal with the issue of consulting parents, I see no real reason why it should not say so. It would obviously be satisfactory and on the whole comforting to parents if it did.
	Amendment No. 86 requires the Secretary of State to give reasons. I can think of no other case where there is a stronger argument for reasons being given by the Secretary of State to explain why a special school is being discontinued. In almost every case this causes great concern and upheaval to the parents and the children. Therefore, the fact that it is a central government responsibility of the Secretary of State more than proves that in most cases the Secretary of State is required to consider the issue very carefully and should give full reasons for the action he is taking. I hope therefore that on this non-party contentious issue the Minister will consider whether he can accept these amendments.

Baroness Buscombe: I support AmendmentsNos. 85 and 86. We recognise that the SEN amendments would go hand in hand with the measures introduced in Amendment No. 84 which would ensure that no special school could be closed unless there are enough places of sufficient quality to cater for the needs of those children that would be displaced. I will be interested to hear what proposals, and I hope reassurances, the Minister has to offer for the future of special schools in this country.
	We are coming to a watershed in the debate on special educational needs provision, and I look forward to a fuller debate on the matter in next week's Committee debates. In the mean time, I hope the Minister can reassure noble Lords that the Government have instigated a reaction to the Cambridge University report, mentioned by myself and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, last week, and the Select Committee report released last week.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 90, 93 and 102. Amendment No. 90 would explicitly include,
	"the enlargement of premises and the establishment of provision suitable for the requirements of pupils over compulsory school age"
	as an alteration permitted under Clause 19. Such an amendment is unnecessary since such alterations are not explicitly forbidden by subsection (4). There is also a slight ambiguity in the amendment. It is not clear whether Amendment No. 90 refers solely to the expansion and creation of sixth forms or separately to the expansion of any school and the creation of a sixth form.
	Amendment No. 93 prevents the expansion of schools where this would prevent a local authority or school carrying out a statutory duty or function. That seems to be slightly contradictory to AmendmentNo. 90, unless it was intended that Amendment No. 90 would make clear that such proposals were not completely prohibited.
	Amendment No. 102 would prevent the approval of certain proposals involving school expansion. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary as Amendment No. 93 would already prohibit such proposals being carried out. Subsection (2) ofClause 20 lists a number of provisions that may be made by regulation. None of them allows for proposals to be automatically forbidden. It would also be totally up to the discretion of the Secretary of State whether such provision was made.
	The amendments seem to be based on the assumption that schools expand at the expense of other schools. We need to examine why schools expand in the first place. Surely it is because parents demand the best education possible for their children. At present too many schools do not offer this. Choice is a vitally important lever for raising standards in failing schools because head teachers and governors will realise that if they do not improve the quality of education, parents will be able to go elsewhere. These amendments would undermine that choice. They would allow local authorities to block the expansion of popular and oversubscribed schools and, by extension, result in more pupils attending undersubscribed failing schools.
	The Prime Minister has said that,
	"you cannot say that good schools are unable to expand simply because you have got surplus places elsewhere when the surplus places elsewhere may be in a school that is not up to standard".
	He also said:
	"We are pleased that the government continues to reject the so-called surplus places rule".
	Perhaps the Minister in his response can reiterate the Prime Minister's commitment.

Lord Adonis: Some perfectly legitimate issues have been raised in the debate, and I hope that I can provide the reassurances that have been sought.
	Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 seek to give local authorities the freedom to establish community schools if they are formed by the merger of any two or more primary schools which the authority proposes to discontinue. Local authorities may seek to publish proposals outside a competition under Clause 10. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that the merger of a junior and an infant school into a single school is exactly the sort of situation where such consent may be granted under Clause 10. I should apologise to her and to other noble Lords as my honourable friend Jim Knight's letter on this issue should have referred to Clause 10—proposals outside competitions with the consent of the Secretary of State—and not to Clause 11, which covers special cases where a competition is never required; for example, nursery schools.
	Amendment No. 82 would extend the additional requirements in respect of rural primary schools, which was added to the present arrangements by an amendment to the Education Act 2005 made by this House. It would extend those present arrangements to all schools. The Government recognise, not least under the influence of your Lordships, which was very plainly felt in a government defeat, the particular importance of rural schools to their communities, and we support and encourage their preservation unless there are strong educational grounds for closure. This is why we already have a presumption against the closure of rural schools in statutory guidance to those who decide school organisation proposals. In addition, we have the provisions in the Education Act 2005 which the House inserted as factors that must be taken into account before any decision can be made.
	Those considering making proposals to close any school will look at a range of factors, including those set out for rural schools in the 2005 Act—the impact on standards, pupil number forecasts, the pattern of parental demand and levels of diversity—in addition to the factors set out in Clause 15. The body that takes the final decision on such proposals will expect to see hard evidence and well reasoned arguments for closure on these and a range of other grounds.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 to Clause 17. I should make it clear that Clause 17 re-enacts provisions giving the Secretary of State the power to direct a local authority to close a maintained special school on a particular date when—and I stress this point—it is considered that it is in the interests of the health, safety or welfare of the children. I entirely accept the points made by the noble Baroness,Lady Williams, about the need to have maximum possible engagement with parents in the school community in all such cases. But this is a reserved power to be used only when there are particularly vulnerable pupils at risk and it would not therefore be appropriate to go through the normal local decision-making processes that apply in other cases.
	Clause 17, even in these limited cases where there are particularly vulnerable pupils at risk and closure is in the interests of the health, safety and welfare of the children, allows for consultation with,
	"such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate".
	We would expect that to include parents of children attending the school, as indicated in the amendment. We believe it is covered, and I have made it clear for the record how the Secretary of State would behave in those circumstances.
	We do not believe that publishing statutory proposals for the closure of schools under the clause would be appropriate, because emergency action may be needed very quickly, and the normal length and scope of consultation may not be appropriate because of the particular health and welfare issues at stake when the Secretary of State decides to proceed to closure. However, the clause already requires the Secretary of State to give notice of the direction in writing to the governing body and head teacher of the school. Before issuing a direction, not only should the interested parties be consulted, as I have said, but a letter giving the direction should clearly set out the reasons for that direction. I believe that answers the other points made by the two noble Baronesses.
	On Amendment No. 90, on post-16 provision, Clause 18 already specifies that the prescribed alterations permissible under it may include alterations of any nature except those listed in subsection (4). They do not include the enlargement or the addition of a sixth form. Subsection (3) says that prescribed alterations may include anything that is not ruled out by subsection (4). Therefore, the objective, which the noble Baroness seeks to achieve, is met by the clause.
	Furthermore, the illustrative regulations made available to the Committee specify in Schedules 2 and 4 that alterations such as the introduction or expansion of sixth-form provision are among those for which proposals must be published. Enlargements and the addition of sixth forms are significant changes to school organisation for which consultation and the publication of statutory proposals have long been required. This will continue, and it will include consultation with the consultees whom the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, listed.
	Amendments Nos. 93 and 102 would, in effect, make it impossible for a school to expand unless that expansion was endorsed by the local authority. I do not want to get into the underlying issue of whether it is a good or a bad thing for schools to expand, but I simply want to make it clear—I think this meets the noble Baroness's point—that local authorities already play, and will continue to play, a decisive part in decision-making in expansion cases over and above one form of entry. Indeed, their role will be enhanced under the Bill in that the Bill abolishes school organisation committees and replaces them with local authorities as decision-makers. The local authority must decide expansion beyond one form of entry.
	However, we do not believe that a school should be required to have the consent of a local authority before it can submit expansion proposals. That would negate our intention to give schools the capacity to expand appropriately to meet the needs of pupils and parents. We think that schools, including community schools, to which the noble Baroness referred, should be able to submit proposals to expand. Any category of school may publish proposals to expand and to add sixth-form provision. The local authority then decides but, in a dispute between a school and the local authority, the school may in prescribed circumstances appeal to the adjudicator when proposals are turned down by the local authority.
	I hope that responds to the points made by the noble Baroness to her satisfaction.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for that and for his reassurances on quite a number of the issues that I raised. I am particularly pleased to have received clarification of the merger of the infant and the junior schools, because it is good that schools know that they do not have to go through a lengthy competition in those circumstances.
	I have one more question to ask the Minister. My Amendment No. 90 was a purely probing amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, seemed to take it at face value, but it was intended simply to be probing, because it was not totally clear whether physical alterations were included. Am I right that Clause 18(2) means that if a community school submits a proposal to expand its sixth form, any such alteration must involve "one ... of the following" alterations in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c)? That would imply that it has to become a foundation school.

Lord Adonis: The complexity of Clause 18 eludes me at the moment. I will respond to the noble Baroness afterwards. The problem is how the clause relates to the other clauses that also give other powers to other schools to publish proposals. The fundamental point is whether all categories of schools can publish proposals to expand post-16 provision. The answer is yes, they can, and they must be subject to statutory consultation.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I should also say that I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances about the closure of special schools. He makes it very clear that there will be an explanation of why a special school is being closed and that the pupils will be consulted if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
	Clause 11 agreed to.
	Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: moved Amendment No. 81:
	After Clause 14, insert the following new clause-
	"BAR ON ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW SCHOOLS OF A RELIGIOUS CHARACTER
	(1) No proposals may be published under this Part or any other enactment for the establishment of a foundation or voluntary school of a religious character.
	(2) Subsections (3) to (5) of section 69 of SSFA 1998 are repealed."

Baroness Massey of Darwen: In moving Amendment No. 81, I shall speak to Amendment No. 205 in my name and in that of other noble Lords.
	During our consideration of the Bill, we have heard some truly inspiring speeches from all sides of the Committee and, indeed, from the Minister on what constitutes education. Members of the Committee have talked about reaching academic and sporting potential, about children with special needs, about learning social skills, about a positive ethos, about developing creativity, and about education being a force for social good.
	I do not consider any of these qualities necessarily to be brought about by faith schools. I have tabled the amendment because I know that there are concerns on all sides of your Lordships' House about the potential expansion of the number of faith schools under the umbrella of foundation schools. I am a humanist and an associate of the National Secular Society, so it is obvious where I am coming from. However, other noble Lords do not share this stance and will have other things to say. I believe that those of us who are concerned share a similar view; an expansion of faith schools could divide communities when we should be trying to unite and integrate them. Reports on Bradford and Burnley from the noble Lords, Lord Ouseley and Lord Clarke of Hampstead, respectively, pointed out forcefully the need for young people to feel more integrated. Lord Ouseley's report states:
	"Some young people pleaded desperately for"
	more cultural and social interaction
	"to overcome the negativity they feel is blighting their young lives and leaving them ignorant of other cultures and lifestyles".
	Where better than in schools to do that? The Muslim researcher and journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has pleaded for schools to represent fairly the society in which we live without,
	"breaking it up into minority groups aided and abetted by the state".
	Ninety-six per cent of respondents to an online poll conducted by the Radio 4 "Sunday" programme in October 2005 thought that "faith schools breed segregation". Diverse faiths can be, and are, celebrated in schools and all benefit from learning about other cultures and from mixing with a variety of peers.
	What about the parents? My school governing body has parents of three different faiths, which is of enormous benefit to the school. Parents of different cultures organise, contribute to and mix at social events. They benefit, the children benefit and the school benefits. I understand the historical reasons for faith schools, which was admirably described by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, in her speech on Second Reading. However, that was then and this is now, where we are.
	Why should we worry that foundation schools will increase the number of faith schools? Non-religious schools have been closing to reopen as faith schools. Eight—one in three—of the new academies are controlled by religious interests; three of them replaced non-religious schools. This expansion represents a huge public subsidy. I hope tonight for clarification on the right reverend Prelates' Amendment No. 128, on the dispersal of land, and how that will work. It is very worrying that the expansion of religious schools may well decrease job opportunities for non-religious professionals. I would seek clarification from the Minister on the right reverend Prelates' Amendment No. 129. What is taught in religious education may not be broad and balanced, and admissions may be carried out on the basis of religion. I am told that faith schools get good academic results. Any selective school gets good academic results. A study by the think tank Iris in 2005 showed that many faith schools take in pupils whose family circumstances are very different from those in the neighbourhoods in which they live. One school, with only 10 per cent of children receiving free school meals, was in a postcode area with more than 45 per cent on free school meals. One faith school had much vaunted GCSE results. In fact, this relied on small class sizes and only six pupils taking GCSE. I am told that faith schools increase parental choice. Choice is rarely possible in small communities. In larger ones choice is often at the expense of others. Faith schools choose their pupils and proliferation of such schools will decrease choice for other parents unless they are prepared to join, or pretend to join, a religion.
	I mentioned ethos. I simply do not believe that faith is a prerequisite of positive ethos. Ethos depends on a variety of things: pupil intake, parental support, good teaching, a good pastoral system, links with the community and parents, and so on. I go back to my main concern about faith schools—that they separate children out at an early age, when children should be learning to live together for the sake of a harmonious society. I believe that we take great risks when we segregate children and deny them a broad education.
	I move on briefly to Amendment No. 205, which is longer than my remarks will be. This is about assemblies and collective worship. Inclusive assemblies can quite clearly have educational value, not least in building a collective ethos by bringing a school community together. They can contribute greatly to pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. Many schools provide such assemblies, but the current law, which requires "collective worship", is against them in this regard. The Ofsted review of secondary schools in England published in 1998 noted the widespread non-compliance with the requirements for collective worship and remarked that it "raises questions about the" 1988
	"Act and its interpretation, and in particular whether schools in a broadly secular society can or should bring their pupils together in order to engage in worship".
	What will the amendment accomplish? It would replace the requirement to conduct "collective worship" with a requirement to hold assemblies that would further pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural education. Teachers, including non-religious teachers, can and do use assemblies to demonstrate that moral values and responses to ultimate questions of existence can be inclusively framed. I have done it myself when a teacher. A reform of the law would encourage such good practice. Sometimes people will insist that all matters spiritual must be religious, but this is not the official position. Ofsted's Handbook for the Inspection of Schools states:
	"Spiritual development relates to that aspect of inner life through which pupils acquire insights"
	into what is "of enduring worth" and which is characterised by the qualities that I spoke of earlier. If the law on worship in assemblies is changed, new guidance issued under the new law would contribute to better sharing of good practice in the provision of inclusive and educational assemblies, and would represent a new entitlement for pupils that could command wide consensus, quite unlike the current requirement to provide collective worship. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: In this group, Amendments Nos. 83 and 129 stand in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham. I would like to speak to my amendments and, to save the Committee's time, to comment on the other amendments in this diverse group.

The Earl of Onslow: Order! The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, had her name to this amendment and, while I have been here, the person who had their name to an amendment has always been the first to speak. I promise that I do not want to be Lord Speaker.

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: I did not see the noble Baroness standing. I apologise to the Committee.

Baroness Flather: I feel that we are at a crossroads. It is time for serious decisions. We have to look ahead 10 or 15 years and see what kind of society we are going to create. We already have a divided society. We already have gross underachievement among many ethnic minority groups, not least Muslim boys. Instead of addressing the needs of those who are underachieving so badly, we are saying that we should put them in separate schools, that we should create a separate, apartheid school for them. Nobody else is going to go to that school. It will be a self-imposed apartheid, which is even worse.
	It is time to consider how we can provide for the religious needs of all pupils in a school that has pupils of different faith groups. It is not impossible to provide. In any case, I do not believe that it is the school's responsibility entirely to provide for the faith of a child. It is largely parents and the religious institutions that should be caring and providing for that aspect. The most important thing to remember is what faith schools have done in some parts of the United Kingdom, what we have seen in Scotland and particularly Northern Ireland. We are still seeing it there, where the great movement is towards integrated schools. Why is there that movement? If faith schools were needed in Northern Ireland, we should certainly not be embarking on that road.
	I find it completely confusing when I think that in 10 or 15 years some young people will not have grown up together and may not meet each other until they go to work. As it is, we have a lot of problems of integration, of coming together and of sharing. If we separate children from the age of five, I do not think that they will be able to cope very well. As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, asked, will we have a cohesive society? We have to consider the needs of everyone, including the children, and that children from different faith groups may require more attention paid to their faith. If we all shared in each other's faith and the teaching of each other's faith, we would all be the better for it. Quite honestly, I find that the major principles of all groups are not so different. If we learnt from each other, maybe that would bring us closer together. I make a plea for bringing us closer together, not separating us.

Baroness Tonge: I support the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Flather, on this amendment.
	I hope that I understand some of the Government's reasons for wanting more faith schools. Certainly there is an issue concerning money. If a group is prepared to put up some money for the establishment of a school, that could be very welcome, although I would rather that the taxpayer paid that money because I believe that education is the most important service that any state can provide for its people. However, I can understand the reasoning.
	I can also understand that because Anglican and Catholic schools exist, we must be fair to other faiths. I was born and bred an Anglican and I believe that we should all recognise the tremendous contribution that the Christian faith has made to education in this country. I suspect that there were times in this country when education would have died out altogether but for the churches that kept it alive. I hope that people will always recognise that.
	To be fair to the people of this country, we should surely ask the Government not to extend the privilege of faith schools to all other faiths in our communities, but to say, "Without abolishing our existing faith schools, how can we make them cater for the needs of the entire community?" I suspect that someone in the debate today will say, "Many of them already do"; and that is quite true. There are many Anglican and Catholic schools that cater for all religions in their communities. That is a very good thing, and I have no criticism of it. However, to use their existence as an argument for extending other faith schools is very dangerous. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, spoke very eloquently about whether faith schools have a better ethos or achieve better results than non-faith schools. I would contest that view, because the people who send their children to faith schools are often selective and much more supportive parents than parents in non-faith schools may be.
	The Government are giving us reasons for allowing other faith groups to fund schools, to make capital available to have other faith schools in this country, but surely the Government must feel a little afraid that in future generations, if not in this one, it will lead to a division of communities, as we have seen in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland the flames were fanned by the existence of different faith schools. Surely, the Government must see that. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he proposes to do, if other faith schools are set up in this country, to ensure that our communities are not divided. For example, will he ensure that children of all faiths attend Muslim schools? Are we going to insist that there should be a mix of children in all our schools, or are we truly going to have the children in our communities, sometimes from the age of five, divided in Muslim, Catholic, Anglican, Hindu and Jewish schools? It is a recipe for disaster. We must understand that.
	In conclusion, I would like the Minister seriously to address this question: what will the benefits be and how will the Government ensure that our communities are not divided further by the existence of more faith schools?

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: I hope that I can now speak to my two amendments and to the other amendments in this group.
	The first amendment standing in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham is Amendment No. 83. That would require local authorities, when they consider whether to propose the closure of a school, to have regard to the balance of denominational provision. For some time there has been a clear expectation from the Government that local authorities will preserve the denominational balance. The Bill provides a good opportunity to place that expectation in primary legislation rather than in regulations or guidance. That is particularly important if, as is proposed by the Bill, school organisational committees are abolished. From the point of view of the dioceses of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, those have been very good forums in which local authority members have engaged directly with representatives of the Churches and listened to their points of view. The world envisaged by the Bill will not provide such obvious contexts for that engagement.
	Amendment No. 129 would modestly extend the freedom of governing bodies of schools with a religious character to appoint staff who will actively support the ethos of the particular school. The first part of the amendment would affect only voluntary-controlled schools, almost all of which are Church of England schools. In the case of Roman Catholic schools and roughly half of the Church of England schools that are voluntary-aided, the governing body has a majority of its members appointed by the Church locally, and new faith schools are also in that voluntary-aided category. The voluntary-controlled schools have a minority of governors appointed by the Church and are controlled, often strongly as to their character and ethos, by the local authority. I have to admit that the name is now a little curious because local authorities do not have that kind of relationship with any school, but the category remains.
	Voluntary-controlled schools have always been able to appoint up to one-fifth of their teachers as so-called reserve teachers, in the same way as teachers are appointed in voluntary-aided schools, taking into account their own faith commitment and, therefore, their willingness to give active support to the religious character of the school. At present the head teacher of a voluntary-controlled or foundation school cannot be a reserved teacher. Since the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, it has been possible for the governing body of voluntary-controlled or foundation schools to select a head teacher on the basis of his or her fitness and ability to preserve and develop the religious character of the school.
	If this amendment is agreed, the governing body will be able to go further and appoint a head teacher in the same way as a reserve teacher is appointed, being selected directly on the basis of his or her commitment of faith. That would happen only if the governing body decided that it should count the head teacher appointment as one of its reserve teachers. Of course, the amendment does not require that to happen, nor does it permit the Church to impose this provision, since the Church-appointed governors are in a minority—usually consisting of only two or three. It would, however, make it possible for a head teacher also to be a reserve teacher.
	The second part of the amendment clears up an oddity that has become obvious since the 2003 legislation. Under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations, it has been possible for organisations able to demonstrate a genuine occupational requirement in relation to a particular post to appoint to that post, taking into account the successful candidate's religion or belief. However, in the 1998 Act there is a bar against taking into account a candidate's religion or belief when appointing support staff in a school with a religious character. This amendment would remove that bar, which would then allow a genuine occupational requirement to be applied if it could be demonstrated in a particular case. The kinds of posts that we have in mind are high-level teaching assistants, clerks to the governing body, non-teaching house staff—all roles that carry a considerable importance in relation to maintaining the ethos of a Church school. The safeguards would be strong, the governing body would need to agree it and it would need to be justified under the 2003 regulations. So much for my specific amendments.
	I should like now to make some brief comments on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. This may initially appear of little relevance to Church schools as it seeks to preserve the status quo and not to close any existing religious schools. I nevertheless hope that Members of the Committee will resist it, as I believe that it would have a major impact, not only on the 7,000 or so existing Church schools—mostly Church of England and Roman Catholic—but also on local authorities. It is a matter of debate whether it would have the effect desired by its supporters of promoting community cohesion—an effect of course which I wholeheartedly support. Faith schools do not necessarily lead to social division and I believe that community cohesion needs to be addressed in other ways.
	The Church of England has an established plan to expand its provision in secondary education sinceThe Way Ahead, the 2001 report by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. His thesis was that with one in four primary schools currently being Church schools, but only one in 20 secondary schools, we need to expand our secondary provision. Since the publication of the noble Lord's report, 29 new secondary schoolshave been opened or considerably expanded; always in response to local demand and with parental andlocal authority support. There are currently plans for 120 additional secondary schools, the majorityof which will serve the more disadvantaged communities.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing's report made clear, Church of England schools are intended to be distinctively Christian and inclusive. We want them to make space for those of other faiths and for those of none, as well as for Christian and local children. There is a very good example in the diocese of Peterborough where we have recently opened a Church secondary school in Northampton. It is sited in an ethnically mixed area. It has a significant proportion of pupils from ethnic communities and a variety of faiths. A number of leaders of other faiths fully supported our initiative in opening the school two years ago.
	There have also been changes in primary provision. Over the past five years, as primary rolls have fallen by 4.9 per cent, Church of England primary school rolls have fallen by only 1.7 per cent. That is because Church schools are popular with parents and their number has consequentially increased disproportionately. To prevent the opening of new faith schools, as this amendment would suggest, would therefore potentially limit parental choice—a point that the noble Baroness has recognised—precisely when they are exercising it in favour of such schools. Reorganisation within local authority areas always involves Church schools, often involving the closure of some and the opening of new Church schools. This amendment would therefore effectively blight some local authority reorganisation.
	In 2002, the House of Bishops publicly declared its support for other faith schools. In recent years, there has been a welcome increase to six Muslim schools in the maintained sector, with perhaps 30 or 40 more to follow. There is a similar number of Jewish schools. That is not in itself divisive. I believe that it is rathera clear signal to the British Muslim and Jewish communities that they are a fully accepted and important part of British society. With a similar commitment to being distinctive and inclusive, their existence is a move against extremism and, I believe, for rather than against community cohesion.
	I shall turn more briefly to the amendment relating to religious education and collective worship. The Churches and the faith communities, including a representative of the British Humanist Association, were closely involved with the then Secretary of State in 2003-04 in developing a non-statutory framework for religious education. In many ways we on these Benches can see the argument for making it statutory. But it is a good piece of work and it is already having an impact on local authority agreed syllabi. In the Church of England we are committed to our schools basing RE on its provisions.
	In February of this year, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth in his capacity as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education signed a statement with other Church and faith leaders welcoming the framework and committing all our Church and faith schools to teach sympathetically about other religions. In our view, now is not the time, as the framework beds down, to make changes in legislation affecting RE in schools of any kind. The time may come, but the framework would need adaptation to make all its provisions work in a Jewish, Muslim, Sikh or Hindu school. We would prefer to build gradually on that recent, hopeful and very positive development.
	We would also strongly support the retention of the current law on collective worship, which we see as flexible and permissive. The right reverend Prelate recently wrote to the Secretary of State in his capacity as chairman of the Joint Education Policy Committee of Churches. He asked the Secretary of State to enable trainee teachers and those preparing for work as school leaders to be better trained in understanding the opportunities that current law provides. We see it as important that children and young people become familiar with the language and silence common to many forms of public worship. They are all likely to attend at the very least at some point in their lives a funeral, a wedding or a baptism.
	I believe that collective worship is a shared experience. It offers children, young people and adults an opportunity to participate in humanity's shared search for God and, in doing so, builds community in and beyond the school. Collective worship in most schools also provides the opportunity for students to gain an awareness of worship and worship practices of faiths other than their own. Above all, it provides shape and formation to that instinct for prayer which is in all of us. Provision for spiritual and moral development without the opportunity of prayer and worship would not have that effect.
	I have already detained the Committee for some time on these important matters, but I hope that Members will permit me one final comment onthe amendment in the name of the noble Lord,Lord Lucas, which seeks to impose restrictions on schools of a religious character in terms of admitting pupils of the same faith as the school. As I have already indicated, the Church of England is committed to ensuring that our schools provide an education of the highest quality within the context of Christian belief and practice. But it should also be able to provide that education to all who seek it, whatever their faith. In practice, many Church of England schools admit a majority of pupils without any faith test. But it would be unfair if committed practising Christians living some distance from the school, perhaps in a poorer area, stood no chance of admission against children living near whose parents whatever their belief have been able to afford a house near the school. I believe that the amendment is a sledgehammer that we do not need. We prefer to address the issue more deliberately.

Lord Ahmed: I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Massey and the noble Baronesses, Lady Tonge and Lady Flather, have very good intentions in tabling Amendment No. 81. They have all expressed their concern about division in communities and children being brought up separately. I should like to express my concerns on the amendment and address some of the issues that have been raised.
	Until about six years ago, less than 25 per cent of Muslim children in state-run schools achieved five GCSEs at grades A to C when the national average was about 48 per cent. I congratulate the Government on the standard being raised to 38 per cent, but it is still not good enough to meet the national average. I know that approximately 135 voluntary Muslim schools have raised the standard of education for Muslim children. The pass rate in those schools is about 55 or 60 per cent on average but there are six state-funded schools that are achieving highly: 100 per cent in the case of Islamia; Al-Hijrah is achieving 86 per cent; and the girls' Islamic school in Bradford is competing with Eton, Harrow and some of the 10 best British schools.
	Islamic schools have raised the standard for Muslim children, who are achieving less than 25 per cent in five GCSEs grade A to C. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, talked about the problems in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley. I live in the north and visitall those towns regularly and I know about the disturbances that took place. I know that not a single student from the Islamic or faith schools was involved in the disturbances. Yes, we have segregation and, yes, we do have a division within the communities. There are some state-run schools with 98 per cent ethnic minorities from one ethnic group. I have gone to Rochdale and Bradford. I have been to Oldham. We can go to Brixton or east London: there are schools with 98 per cent of children from ethnic minorities or even some with 99 per cent. It is not the religious divide that is dividing the communities, but there are other divides that also need to be addressed.
	For instance, I have been to the annual awards at the Islamic school Karamia in Nottingham where they have linked with the local schools, where the local schoolchildren, the headmasters and the councillors come to the school and the children also go to the state-run school. There are many who have established relationships with their local schools. They have twinned with local schools or they have some sort of links with local schools where they try to mix the children. The message that we want to send is to make sure that children who come out of the schools become good citizens. They know about their citizenship responsibilities and I know that that is taught in Islamic schools.
	We need to make sure that there is a higher standard of achievement. I am telling your Lordships that the standard of education in Islamic schools has risen. There is no evidence that any of the fanatics, terrorists or extremists are coming out of them. I go to many schools to give out certificates and I know that the best students are coming out of them and going to universities, and that is where they interact and integrate with the wider community and they are at ease with it because that is what they are taught.
	When we talk about parental choice, raising standards and responsibility within the communities, I know as a Muslim that for 18 years the Muslim community was trying to obtain state funding for Muslim schools. We did not obtain it until there was a Labour Government. Thank God that the Labour Government gave state funding because the Muslim community was feeling as though it contained second-class citizens for 18 years because we have Christian schools, Jewish schools, Sikh and Hindu schools; there is no reason why Muslims cannot have schools that are responsible, that raise standards and that make our children good citizens.
	I am sure that we need to take initiatives to try to integrate our children more at local level, but we have to do it in state-run schools first or in parallel with them because we have those divisions in state-run schools too. I hope that the Committee will resist this amendment.

Lord Baker of Dorking: Before I speak to Amendment No. 146A, I want to comment on the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Tonge, and my noble friend Lady Flather, who all spoke eloquently in favour of secularism? That has a long and honourable tradition in the debates on education in our country. But secularism has never become very popular in our country for historic reasons. It required the French Revolution to create anti-clericalism that led to the exclusion of religious education in French schools. When new countries set up their education systems, some of them, such as America, also excluded religious education from state schools.
	But in our country, schools and religion have gone together for centuries. The secondary school I went to, St Paul's, was founded in the churchyard ofSt Paul's. In those days—1509—it had a remarkable foundation by Dean Colet, who said that 153 boys should receive free education and they could come from all colours and creeds. That is a remarkable statement for 1509. It is indicated clearly that there has always been an inclusive nature in much of the Christian education in our country.
	My amendment would say that when groups come together and seek to establish a new faith school, permission will be given only if at least 30 per cent of the children come from other faiths. That is not as it were the ultimate argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, is making; it is a different way of approaching the problem. I say that because the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, have to be met. The ethnic communities and the other religions in our country—not only the Muslims but also the Hindus, Sikhs, the Greek Orthodox and the Jews—have always felt that they should have some share, as it were, which my amendment would still provide.
	My point is that traditionally Anglican schools have not been exclusive for a long time. I went to a state Anglican primary school in Southport. We went to church twice a year. We had a hymn and a prayer at the beginning of the day, but that happened in every school in those days. There was no exclusion: my closest friend was a Jewish boy and I learnt about the Jewish faith by going to his home in the evening and finding out how he prepared. We were all in together. I certainly was not told that I was one of the elect and I was going to be saved by going to that school.
	Very few Catholic schools are now exclusive. Originally they were, but I remember visiting several Catholic schools when I was Secretary of State, which included children from all faiths and no faiths, because frankly they had run out of Roman Catholic pupils. I do not believe that the two Christian faiths in this country are exclusive. They are inclusive. I believe strongly that a separate education is not the ideal way forward for our country at the moment. A separate education based on faith means a separate status and eventually a separate community. It is inevitable. In Northern Ireland, apartheid starts in schools; 90 per cent of children in Northern Ireland still go to separate faith schools and look what has happened there.
	There is a growing opposition to more exclusive faith schools. Trevor Phillips, who is the most eloquent spokesman for racial and ethnic equality, has come out against them. So has the National Union of Teachers. David Bell, the former chief inspector, writing a year ago, said,
	"many young people are being educated in faith-based schools with little appreciation of their wider responsibilities and obligations to British society".
	More recently, the director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity has also come out against them.
	Separate faith schools that are exclusive are bad for both the majority community and for the minority community. They are bad for the minority community because they emphasise the separateness and the separate status that that community has—that is what they are there for. It might be ways of handling themselves, ways of dress or all sorts of things, but they are separate. They are not part of the wider responsibilities that David Bell talked about.
	I happened to listen to a broadcast on BBC Radio 4 when I was driving up one morning about a fortnight ago, with a young man from Pakistan who was visiting exclusive faith schools—Muslim and Christian—and non-faith schools. This is what he said:
	"When I went to school in the 1980s state schools like these didn't exist. My parents were Pakistani immigrants—education was to be my way out of working in a factory like my dad. They sent me to a mainly white comprehensive where I was one of a handful of Asians. At this point I should be complaining about feeling alienated and excluded but the truth is—that school was the best thing that happened to me. I learned how to socialise and talk to other kids—unlike the Asian boys who went to the all-Asian schools".
	That is an eloquent expression of someone from a Pakistani background who experienced growing up in our country.
	There is no doubt that the schools are highly exclusive. I have managed to get through the internet the admissions policy of some of these schools, although I am waiting for some others. I have only those from Islamic schools. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and hope he will understand that I have nothing against Islam. As a practising Christian, I have great respect for all other faiths. But the admissions policy is highly selective. Some schools require passport photographs; I do not think that that is done in other state schools. There is one Islamic secondary school that asks:
	"Can your child read the Qur'an fluently? ... Has your child completed reading the Qur'an? ... How much of the Qur'an has your child read? ... How many Surahs of the Holy Qur'an has your child memorised?".
	I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate could tell us how many Christian schools ask whether their pupils have read the Bible and how many things they remember from it. The answer is none—because there is no exclusive questioning of that sort.
	Let us be aware of the exclusive nature of the schools that are being established. Another admissions policy that I have found states that the aim of the school is to produce,
	"total Muslim personalities through the training of children's spirits, intellect, feelings and bodily senses".
	I have nothing against that, but I believe that that instruction should take place in mosques, synagogues, temples and churches. Until 1997, that was the policy. The Government changed the policy, reversing the policy of all previous Secretaries of State, including myself. On the whole we resisted giving permission to exclusive faith schools. In my time, I had no applications from Christian bodies but I had applications from Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh bodies. I always found good reasons why one could not give permission, and I believed that that was the right policy to follow. The Government changed that policy, which was a grievous and huge mistake, and successive generations in our country will suffer from it.
	I should like to see the sort of movement that is now happening in Northern Ireland to have integrated schools. One school that I have come across is the Hazelwood integrated school, which has 40 per cent Roman Catholics, 40 per cent Protestants and 20 per cent others—other faiths and no faiths. That is the sort of mixture that I am trying to achieve in my amendments.
	Finally, I draw your Lordships' attention to the comments of a Nobel Prize winner and one of our most distinguished academics, Professor Amartya Sen, who was the master at Trinity and is now a professor at Harvard. He won the Nobel Prize in 1998 for his work on economics of equality, poverty and famine and on social choice theory. He is quite convinced that the policy of separate and exclusive faith schools is wrong. I have read that:
	"What grates on Sen is the idea that individuals should be ushered like sheep into pens according to their religious faith, a mode of classification that too often trumps all others and ignores the fact that people are always complex, multi-faceted individuals who choose their identities from a wide range of economic, cultural and ideological alternatives".
	He has said that:
	"Being defined by one group identity over all others ... overlooking whether you're working class or capitalist, left or right, what your language group is and your literary tastes are, all that interferes with people's freedom to make their own choices ... I think there is a real tyranny there. It doesn't look like tyranny—it looks like giving freedom and tolerance"—
	those are the arguments that are used—
	"but it ends up being a denial of individual freedom".
	Those comments are very pertinent today. In our society, which is having a great deal of trouble absorbing different groups, although we are making a better fist of it than most other western countries, to create exclusive faith schools is fundamentally wrong. At a time when the world is faced with two religious wars, it is extraordinary that we are prepared to consider this. So I hope that your Lordships will give some consideration to the amendment that I have tabled. I am not against the sort of faith schools that exist in our country, but any new ones should not be exclusive. They should have children from other faiths as well.

Baroness Whitaker: In the interests of time, I restrict myself to discussing the amendments in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, dealing only with the curriculum for religion, beliefs and values. I add "beliefs and values" to "religion" because the amendment would broaden the statutory definition of religious education so that it better reflects the more inclusive approach of the 2004 non-statutory national framework for RE produced by the QCA, which the right reverend Prelate commended. That framework referred to "religions and beliefs" and explicitly recommended that "other world views" such as humanism should be studied. I declare an interest as the vice-president of the British Humanist Association.
	The amendment goes on to require voluntary-aided schools with a religious character to follow the locally agreed syllabus for RE rather than their own, putting them in the same position as voluntary-controlled schools with a religious character. By the way, the reference in the Marshalled List should be to Schedule 19 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, not Schedule 8; it is a misprint. I hope that that makes it clear that we are not in any way seeking to deny parents with children at voluntary-aided faith schools the right to have their children receive religious instruction, but are seeking to ensure only that all children in all maintained schools have an entitlement to know broadly what the range of accepted religious and non-religious beliefs are all about.
	Of course, not all locally agreed syllabuses are as broad, balanced and inclusive as they might be, but at least they are subject to an overall structure for the diverse views that they should introduce children to, and they will, one hopes, become even more inclusive as the influence of the non-statutory national framework on RE trickles down to the local committees that set the RE syllabuses.
	In an ideal world, there might be a national curriculum subject of beliefs and values that educated all our children about all our important religious and secular beliefs, underpinned by a thorough education in the universal human rights that the UK has committed itself to in the international human rights instruments. That would be the national basis from which different religions and beliefs would take their own path in the curriculum.
	As it is, we have citizenship education, which includes some human rights education as a part of the national curriculum, and religious education, which is also compulsory for all maintained schools, but is not part of the national curriculum. It is the fact that RE is not a part of the national curriculum that this amendment seeks to mitigate. That is why voluntary-aided faith schools do not need to follow the locally agreed syllabus of RE as other maintained schools do, but may follow a syllabus of their own. It also means that the quality of locally agreed syllabuses across the country is fairly patchy, with no common standard. So, requiring voluntary-aided faith schools to follow the agreed local syllabus rather than their own would at least mitigate what might be the effects of allowing some faith schools to teach an unbalanced curriculum of religious education, something that many people fear. It would ensure that our children have the opportunity to know what the full range of our heritage of values and beliefs is while learning the particular perspectives of their own.

Lord Skidelsky: I support the non-exclusive version of the faith school amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Baker. He made a powerful argument against complete separation, but at the same time he did acknowledge the powerful case made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. I should like to say a few words about that, but here I must take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. I always hate to disagree with her, but in this case I think I must. It is no solution to the problem of under-achieving Muslim boys to force them into low-achieving, multi-faith or no-faith schools. Many Muslim parents and other parents who choose faith schools do so not because they want to preserve their family religion, but because they are fed up with the quality of education they would otherwise be getting in state schools. This illustrates the point that parents choose faith schools because they want a good education for their children and faith schools are much more likely to provide it. I agree with the point made that they should not be exclusive.
	In principle, of course everyone should rise together, but equally, highly motivated minorities should not be held back by majorities. As for the integration argument, the best way to integrate Muslim and other minorities is to get as many as possible into the middle class, and the quickest way of doing that is up the educational escalator. I would not mind so much if people had a period of relatively separate education provided that they could mingle together at university and there find their role in British society according to their abilities. That is why I support a moderate version of the faith school.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 81 in the name of my noble friend Lady Massey. My concern is with extremism and what may be taught in schools run by fundamentalists of any or all faiths, with their belief in the absolute truth of the creation of the world and origin of mankind as delineated in their holy books.
	When I was at school, the theory of evolution was taken as, if I may use such a word, gospel: the good news, the truth, undoubted and rarely questioned. My father was a geologist and a science teacher, and I was brought up on Darwin. Genesis, Adam and Eve and the Flood were taught in what were then called "scripture lessons", but taught as beautiful myths, as stories to be believed in only by a credulous society living in a world before science as we now know it began. Now, thousands believe them and are being taught to believe them. Biology teachers at a sixth- form college have told me that many of their students say that they will learn the theory of evolution in order to get their A-levels and go on to higher education, but they know very well it is false and that God created the world in six days.
	The usual answer to the question, "Is creationism taught in faith schools?" is "no" and that what is taught is the national curriculum requirement, the theory of evolution. Those replying usually fail to add that creationism and/or intelligent design is taught alongside it as a viable option, or taught in religious education classes. Professor Steve Jones, addressing the Royal Society, has said that to give creationism and evolution equal weight in education is,
	"rather like starting genetics lectures by discussing the theory that babies are brought by storks".
	The Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches have no problem with evolution, as they have none with the descent of man. Fundamentalists of almost all faiths refuse to accept this and therefore want their children to subscribe to that view too. The Seventh-day Adventist school in north London became in 1996 the first school run by a minor Christian denomination to receive state funding. It teaches Darwin because it is obliged to, but teaches creationism as well, as do some Muslim schools and a Hasmonean school which educates more than 1,000 Orthodox Jewish students. The director of Jewish studies at the school has made it clear that he would prefer Darwin to be dropped from the national curriculum.
	I have been told by a child attending one of these schools that we have nothing to fear from global warming because God had promised that the Flood would never be repeated. When students learn that God created the world in six days, they will also hear the extremely sexist viewpoint that a woman was responsible for bringing sin into the world. In the face of fossil and dendrochronological proof, some creationists insist that the earth is 4004 years old and appear to believe that pine trees in California may seem to be nearly 10,000 years old only because God put the rings in their trunks for some obscure purpose intended to deceive mankind. Professor David Read, vice-president of the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific academy, has said:
	"The Royal Society fully supports questioning and debate in science lessons, as long as it is not designed to undermine young people's confidence in the value of scientific evidence".
	Surely the teaching of creationism and such views as I have just mentioned, even when presented alongside the theory of evolution in a cynical attempt to comply with the national curriculum, is done plainly to undermine young people's confidence in proven scientific evidence. Are we in danger of entering a phase of existence in which, thanks to the encouragement of fundamentalism, to believe in creationism is the norm while to accept as truth evolution and the descent of man is an eccentricity? It is a possibility if the present trend in certain schools continues. I therefore support my noble friend's amendment.

The Earl of Onslow: I rise to support my noble friend Lady Flather, but I also have difficulty with supporting her. That may sound slightly schizoid, but if we go back to the Book of Common Prayer, the Authorised Version of the Bible and Shakespeare, those were the great works which were taught in Church schools before state education came along. The Church of England primary school in our village is a totally excellent and tolerant institution. The Roman Catholic school, whose prizes I gave out some years ago, is another excellent school in Guildford. What I suspect has happened is that we avoided the clash to which my noble friend Lord Baker referred—the clash between the Church and the state as happened in France. It was a vicious argument that lasted for 100 years and ended in total victory for secularism.
	However, because the Churches produce such good and tolerant schools, we think, "What a good idea". I also suggest that the Muslims, the Jews and the Roman Catholics are saying that they want to follow the good example of the Church of England in its contribution to education. But the dangers pointed out by my noble friend Lord Baker override that. His speech on the admission criteria of some Muslim schools struck me, first, as something which the great Muslim intellectuals of Baghdad who translated from Greek into Arabic the principles of mathematics, chemistry and algebra certainly would have regarded as profoundly intolerant. What my noble friend read out for the Committee were the conditions of intolerance. The conditions in Northern Ireland are those of intolerance. It is that intolerance and exclusivity which are harmful to society. We have enough stresses in modern society, and we have enough difficulties with people who come here with completely real faiths that are not the same as what the country has been used to for many years. We must, because we are a tolerant and a successful society, adjust and ensure that we accept those arguments. What we cannot do is to apartheid-ise anything. Ghettoisation would be nothing but extremely bad, so, reluctantly, I come down to the view of my noble friend Lady Flather. I can see the argument for the tolerance of the Church of England system but, reluctantly, I come down to the view of supporting her amendment.

Baroness Turner of Camden: I support my noble friend Lady Massey on Amendment No. 205 in this group, to which I have put my name. As a number of people have said, faith schools are extremely divisive. I do not want to go over that ground again, except to say how much I support that view. Nevertheless, we have faith schools, and Amendment No. 205 endeavours to preserve the rights of pupils who do not support any particular religion and parents who do not wish their children to have religious education or attend religious worship. It gives the right for those pupils to be excused from religious education. It says that,
	"the pupil shall be so excused until the request is withdrawn".
	I would have thought that a perfectly reasonable proposition in an amendment that overall deals with collective worship. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be willing to accept it. It seems to me that those who do not profess a religion ought to have the right not to be taught religious education or anything to do with religion if they or their parents do not want it.
	Amendment No. 129, which the right reverend Prelate has spoken to this evening, concerns the employment of staff in schools with a religious character. I hope that the Minister will not feel inclined to accept the amendment, which would mean that very good and competent teachers might face non-employment. The idea that there should be arrangements under which teachers, before being appointed, should be willing to accept the religious colouring of the school in question is not acceptable. We have debated this from time to time in this House, and I think that there has been general agreement. Not all subjects have a religious content, and it should be possible for a teacher of, say, mathematics to still have a job at a religious school even though he may not himself adhere to the religion of the academy or organisation concerned. The amendment should not be accepted. Although it is perhaps not what the right reverend Prelate intended, I am quite sure that if it became part of the statute it would very soon become a practice among those foundations and voluntary schools or schools with a religious orientation. I hope that it will not be accepted.

Lord Taverne: I want to add a few words to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. First, I reinforce the point that she made strongly and which was extremely convincingly argued by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that more faith schools are bound to favour more segregation rather than integration. I do not want to repeat the arguments, but I will quote an eloquent description of what one would seek from education. This is from a letter from Rabbi Jonathan Romain, in the Times, on 1 October. He said:
	"Lack of contact leads to ignorance of each other, which can breed suspicion and produce fear and hostility. The best way of finding out about members of other religions is not by reading books"—
	and I add, not necessarily by being taught about it—
	"but by mixing with them. I want my children to sit next to a Sikh in class, play football in the break with a Methodist, do homework with a Hindu and walk to the bus stop with a Muslim before returning to their Jewish home".
	I do not see how separate schools will further that aim, because the acknowledged purpose of such schools is to inculcate religious beliefs in children. The Church of England has declared that it aims to promote the Church of England through its schools; Catholic schools promote the Catholic religion and the aim of Muslim schools is to teach Islam. The headmaster of the Islamia School, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, referred, said that it was part of the aim of his school to inculcate profound religious beliefs in the children—I think that that was how he put it. That must move people away from the kind of ideals expressed in the rabbi's letter. We live in a multicultural society, and I am in favour of a multicultural society, but with a maximum amount of integration. That integration must come from the schools. With great respect, I do not agree withthe noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that this can be left to the university stage—the earlier the better.
	My second reason for supporting the amendment is one that perhaps does not command more widespread support. I have no objection to schools teaching about religion, but it is wrong that schools should teach children to believe. They should teach doubt, and they should teach critical thinking. As a humanist, I respect the role of faith in people's lives, and I know that many people have come to hold their religious beliefs after long critical thought. But I am worried about the attitude of uncritical acceptance, without regard to evidence, of certain articles of faith, which is likely to be taught in religious schools. Consider a debate about stem cells and whether one should use embryonic cells or adult cells. That is an issue of evidence. Some people may argue that perhaps adult cells could be sufficient and one need not use embryos, but other people of a particular religion could not accept the evidence if it showed that stem cells were more effective and would uncritically accept that they should not be used.
	Consider the issue, which is of great world importance, of the distribution of condoms in Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS. The Pope has announced that it is wrong, as have the evangelicals in America. The Muslims have announced that it is wrong. I regard the policy that they advocate as a crime against humanity, because it condemns hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people to death from AIDS.
	I do not think that we should teach religion in our schools. The Americans have got it right. We are essentially a secular civilisation, and Enlightenment values have spread since the days of the Enlightenment gradually through our society. To promote faith schools is a retreat from Enlightenment values and is part of a current trend that I find deeply disturbing.

Lord Ahmed: Before the noble Lord sits down, he said that the founder of Islamia School said that that school teaches Islam. The noble Lord gave the example of the rabbi who wanted children to mix with different communities. I hope that the noble Lord is not insinuating that Islam does not allow that. It is quite the contrary; those who are taught in Islamic schools are very much taught to live within a society that is multicultural and multi-religious and to respect everyone equally.

Lord Taverne: The point that I was making was that the rabbi said that he wants his kids at school to play football with members of a different religion,to sit beside someone of a different religion and to go to school on a bus with someone from a different religion, and that that will not happen in segregated schools.

Lord Dearing: My not speaking until now gives me an opportunity to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who raised a couple of points earlier in Committee. She said that all classes of schools have failure—I agree. As has been said, I chaired a group that looked at the future of Church of England schools. That caused me to look around and led me to the conclusion that any justification for the expansion of Church of England schools should be grounded in superiority of academic achievement. In a 400 to 500-paragraph report, only two paragraphs were addressed to that. In them, we referred to a degree of failure. We mentioned two schools that we had visited that were in special measures. We also acknowledged that the Church schools lived in the same world as the rest of us. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, rightly said, they depend very much on getting the right leadership. We counselled the Church not to venture into adding to the number of Church schools, especially as the policy that we recommended was to expand, if at all possible, primarily in areas of the greatest social and economic need. Those schools would therefore be at the greatest risk of failure. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness.
	Reasonable academic performance is a necessary condition of being able conscientiously to recommend an expansion, but that is not a fundamental characteristic of a Church school. Rather, it is having a certain outlook on life. Young people have the experience of living within that community. However, we saw no evidence of any proselytising and seeking to convert children to something that was foreign to them.
	Why then did we recommend an expansion of Church of England schools? When I spoke about this matter on the previous occasion, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, shook her head when I said that there was parental demand. We had obtained some information on that, otherwise I might not have said it. If I remember the figures correctly—sometimes I do—in 1996, some years before we did our study, there were 1.3 applications for every place in a sample of 80 schools, which is nearly half the total of Church of England schools. By 2000, the figure had risen to 1.6. The right reverend Prelate said that, while the rolls for primary schools nationally had fallen by roughly 4.5 per cent, in Church of England primary schools rolls had fallen by only a third of that, which is further corroborative evidence. We should respond in education to parents' wishes. I understand that that it is a building block of the policy of the Government and the Conservative Party. That was a major element in the report.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, or the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to the Sutton report. The Sutton report stated that the top schools were all characterised, whether they were faith schools or not, by a low proportion of people having free school meals. It is true that the faith schools were heavily represented in the top 200 schools, but the social class question was distinctive, as it was with the other schools. The report went on to point out that whereas the proportion of different social classes in community schools reflected their immediate community, it did not do so in the voluntary aided schools, even though the overall proportions were the same. That is legitimate, because if the faith school is distinctive in wanting in its pupil population a certain element, it has a wider catchment area than the immediate community.
	I would have wished to have heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, before I spoke, but as few people were speaking up for faith schools, I felt that it was about time that we had a change of menu. I agree with the first element of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, about beliefs, as long as we can find a way of defining the main beliefs rather than 1,001 beliefs. She will know what I mean. The other amendments in the group refer to importing as a matter of statutory requirement the use of an agreed curriculum into voluntary aided as well as voluntary control schools. That should be an objective, but a good deal of thinking and talking is needed beforewe move to a statutory requirement rather than something that has been accepted by the faiths and is gradually being adopted. We should not go about it this week, but it is an objective that we might look forward to meeting.
	The issue of Muslim schools has come up several times. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, referred to the fact that Roman Catholic schools were originally exclusively for Roman Catholics. I think that thatwas because they were supporting an immigrant community. As time has gone by, they have accepted a wider intake in the great majority of cases. It is not surprising that, when there is a very small number of schools of the faith of an immigrant community, those schools should want to serve that community. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, said that there are 135 Muslim schools. That is a very small number and many of those schools are very small. It is not surprising that immigrants should want the same opportunity as the indigenous population to have their children work within the framework of their parents' faith. If there were 1,000 such schools, it would be a different matter, but the number is small.
	I was listening to a lecture by Prince Hassan of Jordan a couple of months ago—one or two other Peers were perhaps present. He examined the reasons for the world's great problems. Underpinning them all, as he said it, was the divide in dignity. He was referring to his own people in particular and their feeling that dignity is denied them. Similarly, in our own community, we have to be very sensitive to the feelings of those who have come to this country and who are often—this is so of Muslim families—living on low incomes. The families contain many more members than is normally the case. None of the adult members of the family has a job and they live in overcrowded conditions.
	If it was the will of Parliament in some way to block Muslim schools, that would be seen as a profoundly unacceptable signal about their rights as members of our civilisation and as a lack of acceptance of their right to dignity. We should do well to ponder that. I have been into only a couple of Muslim schools, but I have read elsewhere that many of the parents who send their children there are not as well heeled as is typical of the Anglo-Saxon community. They make a great sacrifice. They only pay low fees, and that is reflected in what can be offered them. If there was a bar on any more faith schools in the public sector, the aspirations of quite a number of those schools to come into the public sector and be properly funded with adequate and well qualified teaching staff—aspirations that have been encouraged to some extent—would be denied. The composition of the governing body would not be widened as it otherwise would be. Even if the school is voluntary-aided, it is always a local authority member.
	For a time, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and I had different roles in life and I knew where I stood. He was the Minister and I was the chairman of a nationalised industry who came and made a case to him. On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, I am not speaking for the Church of England at all; I am speaking for Ron Dearing. Of the hundred-odd Church of England schools coming along, 30 per cent must be not of the faith of the foundation. I would say, "No problem, easy!" I nearly said that some might find it difficult to make up the number of the faith. There are definitional problems, but for many long-established faiths this would not be a problem. For the Muslims, however, it could be. I would regret anything that would be interpreted in the Muslim community as a rule that would bite on them but nobody else.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My 30 per cent target to prevent a school being exclusive was meant to encourage schools of separate faiths—not just Islam—to encourage children from other faiths to go to that school. If they did, they would get the state money, the very point the noble Lord was making at the beginning. They would not be cheated. But if they did not get to 30 per cent, they would not get the state money. That is the iron hand in my velvet glove.

Lord Dearing: I understand. We have both made our points, and I shall not pursue that matter.
	I turn to divisiveness, which has been mentioned again and again. I totally understand it. I do not think bringing in Northern Ireland is a fair analogy. We could debate that on another occasion; it is a rather different situation from that in England. The more that faith schools are committed to pupils of their own faith, the more they have a strong obligation to the whole community to encourage respect for other faiths. They must import into their ethos statement that the school offers active goodwill and respect to fellow citizens of other faiths. They should seek opportunities for joint activities with schools of other faiths, or community schools where there are many of another faith. There is a major responsibility to do that kind of thing, and not stay behind closed doors.
	Finally, if we look back, although faiths say things that are unacceptable to many of us and have made bad mistakes, a great body of good has been done. When the state did not provide schools for the poor, who did? It was the Churches—and not just a few, but by the thousands. When the state provided education in 1870, it had a tough job getting people to move over to it. It is fair to recognise that a great deal of good has been done, and it would be sad if we turned our back on all that has been achieved.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: On Saturday, 10 days ago, I was taking a school service in an independent school in my diocese. The service began with contributions from Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Christian pupils. I thought to myself, "In the context of a school with a clear Christian history and identity, what a great experience for these pupils". I also thought, "Isn't it a pity that only those who can pay for this education get that experience?".
	One of the problems with this debate is that if you do not provide for what the people want in the public sector, those who can afford it will pay for it elsewhere. Those who cannot will find other mechanisms in their community to make some provision for the needs of their families and communities. We must come to terms with the fact that we are now a multicultural, multi-faith society. Education must reflect that. We cannot go on behaving as if a secular model will do. Understanding and sympathising with what lies behind the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, neither do I think that we can impose integration. We cannot achieve it like that. Different communities are going to have different educational needs in a multicultural society.
	A crucial thing to be achieved is that every facet of our multicultural community must have confidence in its identity and history if it is to thrive. I live with that in my diocese; I have the Borough of Newham, which is probably the most multicultural borough in most of Europe. A multicultural society does not work as a result of us all gradually becoming the same. It works as a result of us enjoying the difference and learning to live good neighbourly lives across the many faces of our community life.
	Education must reflect that. While one understands, culturally, what lies behind these amendments, some of them would have a damaging effect upon our capacity to build that multicultural community, and build the next generation with sufficient confidence to thrive in it. If that requires Muslim schools, provided that educational and cultural standards are met and the community is satisfied about that, they may be essential at this moment in history for the flourishing of our multicultural society. We have had it with Catholic and Church of England histories, and I can take noble Lords to many places where the quality of those contributions has been enormous. We should strive for every school, whatever its character, to make a wholesome contribution to building the welfare of the whole community. That is what it is about. If we can understand that, we can be a little more relaxed about today's diversification of education.

Lord Lucas: I had better speak to my amendments in this group. I have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that I was enjoying listening too much rather than speaking.
	To start where the right reverend Prelate left off: yes—on consideration and having listened to all the arguments—that is where I find myself. It is enormously important that schools should make a contribution to their local community and, where that is possible—I take the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that that is less possible for newly arrived communities than established ones—they should open their doors and aim to be multi-ethnic schools.
	The right reverend Prelate will know that I have a continuing objection to the admissions practice of some Anglican schools. As many will know, I edit The Good Schools Guide so much of this passes in front of me. Frankly, some Anglican schools are socially selective. They have set their selection procedures so that not only do they get Anglicans but they get middle-class Anglicans. I regard that as destructive. I think that view is shared by most of the Bishops' Benches. As I said at Second Reading, I would be delighted to support any moves from the Bishops' Benches to give them more power to bring these schools into line. Many more Catholic schools do the same thing or are entirely religiously selective. It is time the Catholics joined the rest of us.
	From many Catholic friends and relations I sense that there is a residual feeling of being apart that comes from their Catholic education and from many centuries of persecution. It is time that ended. The way to end it is to follow the route that has been followed by most Catholic independent schools, which is to admit a pretty large proportion of non-Catholics. One thinks of the Catholic schools in the middle of London where there is a great shortage of good education. They are incredibly selective on grounds of religion. The London Oratory and many others effectively exclude large parts of their local community, even the quasi-Catholic community.
	I was brought up in a religious family and on Don Camillo. The advice of the Lord to Don Camillo that he must baptise Peppone's child, whatever Peppone's attachment to communism, is entirely the right attitude. Certainly, when it comes to Church schools, I would be quite content, as would many of us—I include myself as, having been brought up on religion, I have abandoned it—for my child to go to a Church school. Indeed, I would value the philosophy that goes with such a school; I would value that being part of her life.
	Looking at schools that are essentially secular, such as the Camden School for Girls, one can see how much they benefit from large Muslim populations which lend them a very strong moral tone. That is one reason why the Camden School for Girls has succeeded. One's child can benefit in many ways from being in a religious atmosphere, which is why a non-religious person might wish to have access to such a school. Therefore, I have a strong objection to the continuance of mainstream Catholic and Anglican schools that practice total insistence on one religion. During Report or Third Reading, I would very much like us to adopt an amendment that would open up those schools.
	I understand that some of the newer and smaller communities will want their own schools and they may feel that their security is bedded in those kinds of school. Where there are only a few, it does not hurt too much. The small collection of Jewish schools in London is tolerable, although I have found it very difficult to deal with the graduates of some of those schools who refuse to break bread with me because they feel that doing so will make them unclean. I find that a difficult attitude to have grown up with; I do not believe that they would have grown up with that attitude if they had gone to a more mixed school.
	I believe that such schools are tolerable in small amounts. It is difficult for the Muslim community because it is numerous. There are difficult relations between Muslims and Christians throughout the world and the Government appear to be conducting a love affair with the Muslim brotherhood which I find extremely difficult to agree with. Naturally, we have fears about these things. But, at the end of the day, what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and the right reverend Prelate said is right: we have to be trusting in these matters. We know how these things have developed in the past—that is fine—so let the community and the community relations mature, but for goodness' sake let us give them an impetus. Let us say that any school which is selective on religious grounds has to be prepared to admit, say, 25 per cent of children from other faiths, even though they might not apply. Beyond that, schools should have to make a real effort to bring those children in to integrate with the local community; they have an obligation to interact with other schools and other children of other faiths in a way that might make it unattractive. A school which started off as 100 per cent Muslim or Jewish or Scientologist or whatever and is still that way in 15 years' time might be invited politely to return to the private sector.

Baroness Walmsley: I have an amendment in this group and I think it is time that I was allowed to speak to it. I have very much enjoyed hearing from those Members who do not have amendments in this group. I believe this debate has demonstrated your Lordships' House at its best. It seems a pity that we have been forced to have such a mixed group of amendments and that we have to talk to them altogether. In some ways, the discussion has been broken up a little because of that.
	Before speaking to my amendments, I should make a few brief comments, from a personal point of view, about some of the comments that have been made by other Members. I do not often find myself in total agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, nor with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but I agree with both of them when they speak of intolerance and exclusivity being characteristics that we should not encourage in our schools. Although I have enormous sympathy with the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and by my noble friend Lady Tonge and others who supported the first amendment in the group, I am concerned about the idea of an absolute ban on the expansion of any more Church schools.
	I am attracted by what my noble friend Lady Tonge hinted at in her excellent speech; that there is an alternative to the expansion of more Church schools and the right of Muslim groups to have their own schools. That is epitomised by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, which is a compromise. People of faith make up a large percentage of the community in this country and they have a right to have an involvement in education. However, I would prefer that that involvement happened as part of maintained community nonsecular schools. If they really do not want to do that, I believe they have a right to have something else.
	The noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, suggested a compromise which contained the "q" word—quota—which I know many noble Lords do not like, but I can give the Committee an example where I have seen it working rather well. Last summer, I went to the small country of Fiji and had a chat with the Minister of Education there. Fiji does two things very well. One is playing rugby, which is why I was there. The other is that it has integrated the ethnic Fijian and Indian communities extremely well in its schools. I asked the Minister what was the secret and she said, "Money". The state says that if you do not integrate, you do not get the money. That is a strong indication that we should look at something along the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, suggested.
	I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, about Amendment No. 129. I also share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Taverne and his preference for religion to be taught in the home or a place of worship rather than in a maintained school, but that is an aside.
	The main reason for rising is to speak to my Amendment No. 217A, which would allow pupils aged 16 and over to choose to exclude themselves from acts of collective worship rather than have to rely on their parents to do it for them, as now. The Committee may have heard that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is minded to look at this amendment with a view to giving its opinion. However, leading human rights lawyers have already given their opinions and they believe that there is no justification for forcing young people to take part in a religious service with which they do not agree. Freedom of worship, or non-worship in this case, is a basic part of our rights as citizens of a free country, so I would be surprised if the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Minister did not agree with us.
	Of course, there is a case for a slightly different amendment—one that draws a line at the point at which a young person becomes competent to make a decision for himself, but that may differ depending on the maturity of the individual. That would be hard to decide without a professional assessment of the individual, their maturity and their competence to decide, which is why we have laid our relatively simple amendment. It would be strange for a young person to be old enough to work, pay taxes, manage his own money, get married, have children, fight for his country and possibly even vote but not be competent to absent himself from an act of collective worship.
	There have been some high profile cases recently where young people have taken the matter into their own hands. This week's Times Educational Supplement has a story on its front page about some schools trying to impose their religious values on young people. Some 100 pupils signed a petition protesting at the decision to invite a pro-life campaigner to lecture in a school where 17 young people were excluded for a day after they refused to go to Mass and then had to undergo a re-entry interview. Those practices are self-defeating. You cannot impose a religion on anyone and efforts to do so will probably have the opposite effect. If we want young people to take responsibility and act maturely, surely we should respect their rights to decide for themselves on a matter such as this.
	I apologise to the Committee that my amendment is not about the same issue as the one which has been debated so fascinatingly this evening, but because we have these enormous non-homogeneous groups of amendments, this sort of thing comes up. I really felt that it was time that I spoke to my amendment in this group, and I hope for a positive response from the Minister.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I would just like to say—

Noble Lords: Minister!

Lord Adonis: I think that it is the wish of the Committee that I should now respond to the debate.
	This has been an excellent if emotive debate giving a good deal of food for reflection hereafter. I will start in the spirit of peace and goodwill. After much ministerial deliberation and reflection, we accept most of the spirit of Amendment No. 217A moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to which she has just spoken. Pupils aged over 16 should be able to withdraw themselves from collective worship rather than it being a matter for parental consent, as it is for 16 year-olds and under. We will discuss that further with our partners in the faith communities and beyond, but I will seek to move an appropriate amendment at Report.
	Beyond that, we do not think it right to reopen the whole issue of collective worship on which there is a fairly broad consensus within the educational and faith communities. I say broad rather than universal because nothing pertaining to faith has universal consensus, and I deeply respect the views of my noble friend Lady Massey on this issue. However, in the context of the right of parents to withdraw their children, the flexibilities that schools have in respect of the diversity of their communities and the way that they conduct collective worship, we do not see a case for a wider change.
	I can respond to Amendment No. 83, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough, in an equally consensual spirit. We certainly agree that anyone contemplating proposals to close schools should consider the effect on diversity in the area concerned and in particular if there would be a reduction in the choice of schools with a religious character. Statutory guidance makes it clear that in deciding proposals to close schools of a religious character, the decision maker—currently the school organisation committee but it will become the local authority, to accompany the school adjudicator —should consider the effect that this will have on the balance of denominational provision in the area. The guidance goes on to say that parental demand and the standards of the school should also be taken into account. We will aim to retain these protections in the guidance to be issued under the Bill on which we will consult fully.
	On faith schools, two broad propositions have been put before us. The first is that there should be no more within the state sector, which is in Amendment No. 81 tabled by my noble friend Lady Massey. The second is the proposition that there should be a greater diversity in admissions, which was broadly the proposal of the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Lucas. These are issues on which there are strongly held, passionate views on all sides, which the Government deeply respect. Our job is to take a position which we believe to be consistent with the public interest. I want to set out our position as briefly as I can.
	Taking the right to establish faith schools first, the Government believe it would unacceptably infringe the rights of parents in local communities to havea ban on the establishment of new faith schools. Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides for the right for parents to have their children educated in accordance with their religion and other views.
	Throughout the history of state education in this country, which of course predates the ECHR, Parliament has recognised this basic right and has accordingly agreed to the state funding of appropriately regulated faith schools over and above allowing private faith schools which, apart from closure for reasons of unacceptably poor standards, could only be closed by a fundamental breach of the ECHR.
	But our position is not just a question of the ECHR and historical commitments, important as they are. My party has explicitly supported the right of parents within proper local decision-making processes to establish state-funded state schools within the current regulatory system. Our 2005 manifesto said:
	"Britain has a positive position of independent providers within the state system, including church and other faith schools. Where new educational providers can help boost standards and opportunities in a locality, we will welcome them into the state system, subject to parental demand, fair funding and fair admissions".
	And I should add proper local consultation and decision-making.
	That was the manifesto on which we were elected and we intend to stick to it. I could not put the arguments better than did my noble friend Lady Morris, who was Secretary of State when amendments to the Education Bill 2002 were debated in another place—amendments which, like some of those moved today, would have obliged state faith schools to change their admissions criteria to restrict faith-based admissions. My noble friend, who I was glad to see in her place earlier, said:
	"Our starting point is that it cannot be naturally right in a rich multicultural, multi-faith society that only Jews and Christians have managed to get faith-based schools. We would not look at the leadership of the country, find that it did not include many people of Afro-Caribbean and Asian minority faiths, then turn round and say, 'They cannot have wanted it'. We would say that the structure must work effectively, and it is in that sense that the Government have promoted the wish for more faith schools".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/02; col. 896.]
	My noble friend went on to say:
	"I want these schools to be in the maintained sector rather than the independent sector. I want them to be in the framework of accountability and their performance data to be placed in the public domain, as happens in the maintained sector. We do not all agree about that, but it is a strong argument. I also want faith schools to have to make available to their pupils the equal opportunities for boys and girls that schools in the maintained sector are obliged to provide".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/02; col. 901.]
	I could not put those arguments stronger myself and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, made some very good points about the benefits. Parents want such schools to be in the maintained sector rather than in the wholly private sector. My noble friend Lord Ahmed made an impassioned speech on this point and I believe that his arguments merit close attention.
	In the maintained sector, there are no fees. In the private sector, there are fees. In the maintained sector, schools must operate any admissions criteria that comply with the School Admissions Code of Practice. In the independent sector, they do have to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act but they have much wider latitude. In the maintained sector, faith schools must have a governing body, including parent, teacher and community representation. In the independent sector, that is not the case. In the maintained sector, schools must employ teachers who have qualified teacher status and head teachers who have the National Professional Qualification for Headship. In the independent sector, they need do neither. In the maintained sector, schools must employ teachers according to the state School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document and accord them pay and conditions, including pension rights, on this basis. In the private sector, they need do none of these things, and indeed pay rates often in private Muslim schools, which my noble friend referred to, are much lower than they are in state schools. These are all arguments which should be weighed in the balance when local decision-makers decide.
	It is their decisions, not the decisions of central Government, that hold whether it is appropriate for Muslim schools to be able to enter the state system.

The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord, Lord Baker, produced some extremely interesting conditions in Muslim schools that had to be fulfilled, such as how many bits of the Koran pupils could recite, how much they knew, had they read it, et cetera. If they were to produce rules whereby girls had to wear the veil, how does one expect that non-Muslims would want to send their children there? It is that exclusivity that worries one. Will the Government make sure that those admission policies cited by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and my hypothesis on the veil are not allowed, because that would be extremely exclusive and offensive to the host community?

Lord Adonis: I was just about to move on to admissions, which is the second big subject before us.
	We do not support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, although I understandthe concerns that led to it. It is not clear to us how the amendment would work in practice; if he intends to bring it back on Report, as I think that he might, it would be useful for the House to know more about what he intends. He referred to the two Christian faiths; I am not a theologian—I leave those matters to my right reverend friends—but I understand that there is one Christian faith. That is an issue of some importance, because the practical effect of his amendment is that schools should be required to admit 30 per cent of pupils who,
	"are not practising the religion of the school".
	We need to be clear what he means by the "religion of the school"—the denomination or the religion.
	There are some big issues here. I highlight that problem, but there will be many others; in fact, a whole set of practical issues will emerge in seeking to have quotas of the kind that he intends. In the course of good legislation and good government, those problems will be difficult to resolve, and we will point them out if the amendment comes back on Report. If it were passed, it would apply to every faith school. If we did not have answers to many of those acute practical issues, it would be a severe impediment to the implementation of the law.

Lord Baker of Dorking: Perhaps the Minister's officials will give some thought to my proposals. After all, the Government are happy to impose a system of quotas for universities, where they define the numbers quite precisely. I will have a go myself at how the quotas in my proposals would work, but I am sure that his officials could design it.

Lord Adonis: We do not have any faith quotas in respect of universities, and I cannot for the life of me imagine how we would start to devise them.
	There is an issue about the practicality of what the noble Lord proposes. I noted that, in the course of the debate, he and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, appeared to accept that some minority faith schools might not think that their own requirements in terms of quotas applied. If that is the case, we would need to have that view elucidated before any proposition was before us that we could consider seriously.
	The fact that we do not think it appropriate to introduce legislation of this kind does not mean that we do not share the view of the faith communities themselves that their schools should be inclusive, including being open as appropriate to other faiths and taking very seriously their obligations to have strong community engagement with all faith and non-faith elements of their local community. An increasing proportion of Christian faith schools are doing that, including allowing a greater diversity of admissions.
	I shall briefly point out two facts. Provisional figures as at January 2006 show that 21 per cent of children attending Roman Catholic secondary schools and 17.5 per cent of pupils attending Church of England schools are from ethnic minorities, compared with 16.2 per cent for non-faith schools. That appears indicative of a growing diversity of admissions to the Christian faith schools, and does not by itself support an argument that there is a serious problem of exclusivity. The figures in respect of free school meals show the same.
	The research by Professor David Jesson at the University of York shows that voluntary aided—that is, predominantly church—and non-voluntary-aided secondary schools taken as a whole show almost identical levels of eligibility for free school meals which is a proxy for deprivation and does not seem to indicate that faith schools are discriminating against the poor.
	These are all issues to be weighed in a further debate if the noble Lord, Lord Baker, were to bring back his amendment. The Government could not possibly support unworkable propositions which would seek to impose quotas against the wishes of the faith communities and which we do not believe could be fairly implemented in practice.
	Amendment No. 208, in the name of my noble friend Lady Whitaker, would require every locally agreed syllabus for religious education to take account of the teaching and practices of the principal "beliefs" represented in Great Britain, including secular beliefs.
	The current situation is that locally agreed syllabuses must reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian while taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain. The agreed syllabus conferences which draw up RE syllabuses for schools without a religious character are already able to reflect the study of secular beliefs as part of a syllabus. Indeed, my department's non-statutory framework for religious education, which has been endorsed by all the major faith communities, highlights opportunities to study and discuss secular beliefs as well as religious beliefs.
	The second part of my noble friend's amendment would mean that all schools with a religious character, including voluntary-aided schools, would adopt the locally agreed syllabus unless parents request that they provide religious education in accordance with the trust deed or tenets of the school. To enforce such a requirement in respect of all faith schools would be an infringement of the legitimate autonomy of voluntary-aided schools with a religious character. However, the Government are glad to note that the leaders of all the major faith communities agreed earlier this year that they would ensure that,
	"schools with a religious designation should teach not only their own faith but also an awareness of the tenets of other faiths".
	That path-breaking statement by the leaders of all the major religions in our country bears citing more fully in order to respond to the wider issues raised in the debate. The faith leaders agreed that religious education should enable pupils to develop respect for and sensitivity to others and in particular those whose faith and beliefs are different from their own. It should promote discernment and enable pupils to combat prejudice.
	Those are objectives we warmly endorse. I believe that they will commend themselves to the House.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: When I began speaking two hours ago, I had thought that we would have concluded the debate before now. It has been a fascinating and a most encouraging debate. I shall need conversations with many people across the House, in particular with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about his amendments.
	I am confused about one or two matters. The right reverend Prelate said that we should not impose integration. Does that mean that we should impose segregation? I still think that faith schools can divide communities; and that is dangerous. We have sometimes confused religious diversity with ethnic diversity. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, I do not think that we do any favours to children who come into this country by segregating them. At my school, which is a multi-ethnic, multi-faith school, children learn language and social skills rapidly when they come into the school from abroad.
	The issue of parental choice for a faith school can be a choice for a nice, white, middle-class school. We all know the contortions some parents go through in order to get their children into such a school. My noble friend Lord Ahmed—again, I shall need conversation with him—said that he did not want to be divisive. Two things happen. It may be divisive to send a child to a faith school in the community. Alternatively, some children are moved from the community in order to go to faith schools which are miles away. Either way, I do not think that that is good for communities.
	On collective worship, I agree with everything the right reverend Prelate said, except the religious bits. I am sorry the Minister cannot accept this amendment. I am certainly not implying that young people in Muslim schools were involved in disturbances or become terrorists, and I am not suggesting that the closure of current faith schools should be attempted. We need to see where we take these amendments—mine and that of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and others—on the whole issue of faith schools in a community and trying not to segregate.
	Finally, I must say that tonight we have provided an excellent example of how discussions across faiths can be productive, and I would wish the same for all schools. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
	Clause 15 [Proposals for discontinuance of schools maintained by local education authority]:
	[Amendments Nos. 82 to 84 not moved.]
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Direction requiring discontinuance of community or foundation special school]:
	[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]
	Clause 17 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Proposals for establishment or discontinuance of schools in England]:
	[Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 not moved.]
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Alterations that may be made under section 19]:
	[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]

Baroness Crawley: I think that this is an appropriate moment to break. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 9.41 pm.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Before the Motion is put, could we please ask for a business statement to be made when we reassemble in one hour's time?

Baroness Crawley: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Extraordinary Rendition

Lord Campbell of Alloway: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements have been made to enable the refuelling at military airfields of civilian aircraft with passengers destined for extraordinary rendition.
	My Lords, at the outset I thank all noble Lords who have waited to speak on this Question. It is an emotive subject that requires objective examination. In particular, I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, but for whose courageous initiative the Question would not have been tabled, and the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, who has other pressing duties, for taking the Question at this time.
	As there is a well grounded concern and a high level of suspicion that these arrangements are used for extraordinary rendition, resort is had to the advisory role of your Lordships' House to seek to persuade that some measures of safeguard be taken as are to be proposed. If they should commend themselves to your Lordships, the hope is that they should also commend themselves to Government.
	This is an exercise of persuasion, not of confrontation with Government. I speak at no one's behest, and declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was informed that the Foreign Secretary was not aware of the purpose of these arrangements. That, of course, is accepted as an assurance on the part of Government. Why were the Government not informed of the purpose? Could it be that these arrangements were the offspring of a private arrangement—a compact—to seal the purpose that Government made in the wake of the 9/11 disaster? Was that compact to be denied at all costs, never to be disclosed, perhaps the hidden key to open the gateway to the explicable, if this was also classified for non-disclosure by the CIA? Such assumptions can be made only if there is no other explanation. As yet, there is none.
	I turn to the proposed safeguard measures—first to withdraw clearance for the landing of these flights for transfer under these arrangements and then to set up an investigation that protects terrorism intelligence and sources, perhaps under the aegis of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, or the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. I am afraid it would appear that the United States would not attend any such investigation.
	The essence of the findings of the report by Amnesty International on 4 April and 14 July is that civil aircraft on charter to the CIA, with people on board selected for transfer by the CIA to a series of highly suspect destinations, are permitted to land and refuel at our civil and military airfields in the United Kingdom under these arrangements for the purpose of extraordinary rendition. The voting list on an amendment to the Civil Aviation Bill tabled by the noble Baroness,Lady D'Souza—I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, in his place, because he had charge of the debate on that occasion and very generously conceded that it was for the House to decide these matters—reflects the cross-party support of 58 noble Lords, who made the compelling assumption that these aircraft were used for extraordinary rendition, even though the amendment was defective. The noble Lord said it was, which I accept for other reasons—the evil not being in the state of the law sought to be enforced. This was revisited during consideration of the Police and Justice Bill.
	The evidence of Lieutenant General Brims to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in open session appeared to accept that planes landed here with people aboard for transport, but that there was no evidence at all that the purpose was for extradition under these arrangements. In an agreed transcript of other evidence from 27 March, it was stated that the Foreign Secretary had made it plain that there is no,
	"evidence to show that there are people on board those planes which do land here who are being transferred for the purposes of extraordinary rendition".
	May I respectfully ask one or two questions of the Minister, a veritable master of explaining the inexplicable? I am not certain that it will be possible for the Minister to answer. Why was clearance given to some of these planes to land at military airfields in the UK? I am delighted to see a Minister from the Department for Transport in his place, because the object is to close clearance for these planes and that lies within the aegis of the noble Lord. Is it accepted that the Department for Transport instructed the CAA to give clearance for aircraft identified as on charter to the CIA to land at civil and military airfields in the UK? Did the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so instruct the Department for Transport and, if not, at whose behest were such instructions given? Why were such instructions given without knowledge of the purpose of the arrangements? Was any attempt made over five years to discover the purpose of 185 flights?

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, on securing this important debate and on his patience tonight in waiting for the starting signal.
	I confess that I was puzzled by the wording of his Question, since I hope that no such arrangements as he describes have been made, but he has now resolved my puzzlement. As the noble Lord said, this is part of an ongoing series of debates, beginning with the Civil Aviation Bill, proceeding in Committee with the Police and Justice Bill and no doubt continuing into the future. Our time today does not permit an exhaustive argument. The noble Lord opened the case with his customary clarity. In any event, it would serve no purpose for me to repeat what has been said on previous occasions. However, the noble Lord has afforded an opportunity to examine one issue that has arisen repeatedly.
	The Government have not sought to deny that the airspace and airport facilities of some European states have been used or, rather, abused to render prisoners in the custody of the CIA to countries where they were at risk of torture. The evidence is overwhelming, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has explained. I am sure that the Government would not be privy to any such practice in this country, but the question is whether they are in a position to know what is happening. The Government say that no special legislation is necessary here, because there is already power for the police to enter and search aircraft using United Kingdom airport facilities.
	On 4 July, in the debate in Committee on the Police and Justice Bill, my noble friend Lady Scotland sought to argue that case. I apologise at once to my noble friend Lord Triesman for springing this on him—I had not appreciated that he would be responding to the debate and I do not expect an answer to some of my questions this evening. My noble friend Lady Scotland mentioned Sections 8, 17 and 23 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Section 23 simply states that the word "premises" in the Act includes aircraft. Section 8 provides that a justice may authorise a search if there has been a serious arrestable offence and thereis likely to be relevant material on the premises.Section 17 authorises a constable to enter premises for a number of purposes, the principal one being to make an arrest. My noble friend also mentioned Part III of the Aviation Security Act. As I read it, that does not add any new powers to those that the police already have.
	My noble friend accused me of not having identified a gap in the existing powers. I can identify a substantial gap. If there is reason to believe that someone has been lawfully arrested in the jurisdiction in which he was taken aboard the aircraft but it is now planned to take him to a destination where he is likely to be tortured, I am not clear under which of the provisions mentioned by my noble friend power is granted to the authorities to search the aircraft. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has given some thought to this matter and can perhaps assist.
	My noble friend Lady Scotland was kind enough to respond to my suggestion that we could analyse this matter in a private meeting. It is no one's fault that that has not taken place. However, perhaps in his reply my noble friend can at least assure us that if the Government are persuaded in due course that there is a question about the existence of adequate powers, he will press the Government to seize an early opportunity to rectify the matter by way of legislation; and I realise that it does not lie entirely in his gift. It would be tragic if we permitted someone to be subjected to torture by an oversight.

Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for introducing this debate on a particular aspect of extraordinary rendition. My interest is that I am the vice-chair of the European Parliament's temporary committee on extraordinary rendition.
	First, like all EU and Council of Europe states, the UK is under an international legal obligation to ensure that everyone within its jurisdiction enjoys internationally agreed fundamental rights, including protection from arbitrary detention and torture. That obligation may be violated by acquiescence or connivance in the conduct of foreign agents. Therefore, there exists a positive duty to investigate substantiated claims of breaches of fundamental rights. Those claims have been substantiated by a great volume of credible testimony from victims, by flight records and through judicial and parliamentary as well as journalistic inquiries.
	Secondly, Council of Europe member states are bound by various multilateral and bilateral agreements, such as defence, international civil aviation and military bases agreements, but the obligations arising from those treaties do not prevent states from complying with their human rights obligations, and those treaties must be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with human rights obligations.
	Civil aircraft are entitled to transit or land in the territory of a state that is a party to the Chicago Convention without obtaining prior permission. However, that state can search the plane or inspect certificates or other documents, such as a passenger list. The fear is that extraordinary rendition planes—that is, private jets leased by the CIA—have sought to have it both ways; they have pretended to be civil aircraft so as to escape the need for authorisation but they have sought to enjoy the immunity from search and inspection that state planes have. Amazingly, it seems as though some European Governments may have allowed them that special double indemnity. Our own Government may have turned a blind eye.
	In response to the report from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the other place, the Government said that they "expected" the United States to seek permission to render detainees via UK territory or airspace—a curious term. One would expect an insistence or a requirement to seek permission.
	Of course, in the leaked Foreign Office memo of last December, it was admitted that the Government did not know how often the US had sought permission for rendition flights. What checks have the Government made of Ministry of Defence records of civil flights that land at military airfields? The Government have now acknowledged that the Chicago Convention allows searches and requirements to land, but they refuse to lift a finger, even though there are protocol allegations, to investigate this properly.
	International instruments against torture require states to assert jurisdiction over torture offences committed in their territories. If states facilitate transfer of an individual to a state where he is at risk of torture, they could be liable for complicity. Such assistance can consist of allowing refuelling or granting overflight or landing rights. In circumstances of overwhelming prima facie evidence, which I suggest exists, of extraordinary rendition having taken place in and through UK and other EU states, even if that evidence is not of a criminal standard of proof, it is incumbent on the UK authorities to stop being passive or turning a blind eye and to start living up to the European and international legal and human rights obligations that British lawyers contributed so much to drafting.
	The UK must put itself in a position where it can ensure that it complies with the legal obligation to investigate torture and other breach of human rights allegations. I suggest that the Government's response to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the other place is inadequate. The Government said:
	"In the absence of evidence of any renditions through UK territory or airspace ... we do not consider Article 12 of the Convention Against Torture requires us to carry out a further investigation".
	There is enough evidence, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights said. I hope that the Government will tell us that they are now going to carry out a proactive investigation. It is not enough to be passive or to be wilfully ignorant. I suggest that that would betray this country's reputation for upholding human rights obligations.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his kind words. I congratulate him on securing this debate and on persisting in trying to deal with this difficult and unacceptable business of extraordinary rendition. This is not an issue that suffers from a lack of concerned attention. To date there have been at least four major reports, including those from the joint All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe. There are detailed briefings from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Liberty and the International Bar Association, among other human rights organisations. There is the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition and there is comprehensive documentation of all the evidence to date from the House of Commons Library. There are at least two ongoing journalist investigations, and questions in both Houses of Parliament and several debates have taken place in the past year. A case is being brought in the US courts by the American Civil Liberties Union. An amendment to institute a mechanism to ensure that in the future any suspicion is immediately acted on was, as has been said, put forward in the context of the Civil Aviation Bill and is currently in the Police and Justice Bill. Therefore, the topic is well researched and the ground has been well covered in this House.
	All these reports, questions, debates and briefings suggest that the UK and other European countries are guilty of a degree of involvement in extraordinary rendition of foreign nationals suspected of terrorist activity. However, the issue that emerges is the large amount of circumstantial evidence pitted against the Government's repeated assertions that the UK has not and would never condone the practice of extraordinary rendition. Those assertions of course are extremely welcome.
	But is that enough to deter other countries from using UK facilities—military or otherwise—to further their own methods of pursuing suspected terrorists? As has already been said, logically, the possibilities are that, first, whatever happens in other parts of the world, extraordinary rendition has not in any way involved the UK either in the use of facilities, top-level agreements or the intelligence services because of a comprehensive and stringent refusal on the part of the Government to be instrumental in it; secondly, UK facilities and perhaps the intelligence services have been involved without the direct knowledge of the Government; and, thirdly, the Government are aware that extraordinary rendition has on occasion taken place using UK facilities and intelligence services, but there is no, nor is there likely to be, direct evidence.
	At present the first possibility is the one that is put forward by the Government. But that is increasingly difficult to maintain due to more evidence emerging and the admission by senior judicial personnel that many European countries have been guilty of allowing territory to be used for extraordinary rendition. The European Union Justice Commissioner, for example, is calling on Governments to make clear their role in extraordinary rendition. The Swiss senator Mr Dick Marty asserts that collaboration with the CIA is proven. The Council of Europe Secretary-General feels that blanket denials of involvement do not constitute an adequate response and he calls for official investigations.
	If the second possibility has any validity, the intelligence and airport services are operating outside the law, which would constitute culpable ignorance on the part of the Government. The third possibility is of course an extremely depressing one and not at the moment a road down which thankfully any of us have to go.
	However, I have to repeat the question: is it enough for the Government to assert their adherence to the UN Convention Against Torture? I suggest not. There is a strong suspicion of wrongdoing and the Government could easily damp down those suspicions with actions designed to prevent any future possibility of involvement in extraordinary rendition, which would at the same time reassure the public of the UK Government's legal and moral commitments.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, like other noble Lords I congratulate my noble friend on securing this important debate. In so far as it may be of relevant interest, I remind the House that I am a green card holder and therefore sometime resident in the United States. Given that my life straddles both sides of the Atlantic, I begin by stating my firm support for the fight against terrorism. But I am equally convinced that—and despite this being a statement of the obvious, I do not believe that it can be said often enough—we diminish and demean the virtue of that fight if, however marginally, we resort to the tools and tactics of the terrorist.
	As to my noble friend's Question today, I make no claim for any particular expertise in relation to extraordinary rendition. Like most of us, I merely rely on the odd news reports that have appeared in the media. Rather, I come to the issue in my capacity as a delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE. As it happens, our annual plenary session took place in Brussels the week before last and, as the Minister will no doubt be aware, the resulting declaration contains a number of resolutions adopted by the assembly. One in particular, entitled "Strengthening effective parliamentary oversight of security and intelligence agencies", has special relevance to today's debate.
	After due consideration by the full assembly rather than just in committee, that resolution was amended by the addition of a number of new paragraphs. Two of those are of concern. The first,
	"Urges all participating States to ensure that their territory and facilities are not used to assist rendition flights or to operate secret detention centres, and to cooperate fully in the investigations conducted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament into allegations about secret detention centres".
	The second chimes with the numerous requests that other noble Lords have made tonight. It again,
	"Calls upon all participating States to investigate promptly and thoroughly allegations that their territory has been used to assist CIA-chartered flights secretly transporting detainees to countries where they may face 'disappearance', torture or other ill-treatment".
	I make no judgment as to whether those represent an accurate reflection of current Foreign Office and/or government policy. That said, it is worth pointing out that perhaps not surprisingly only the US delegation was opposed to the insertion of the two new paragraphs and in fact all members of the UK delegation, irrespective of their political allegiance, voted for them. Indeed, tacit Foreign Office acceptance of the substance of the paragraphs could perhaps be inferred on the basis that the FCO officials present did not seek to make us aware of any potential policy conflicts that acceptance of the amendments may have contained.
	That therefore begs an inevitable question. So far as I am aware, the Government have consistently refused to contemplate any inquiry into extraordinary rendition in the UK. As the Prime Minister put it in December last year:
	"I have absolutely no evidence to suggest that anything illegal has been happening here at all, and I am not going to start ordering inquiries into this, that and the next thing, when I have got no evidence to show whether this is right or not".
	Perhaps the best that can be said about that statement is that at least the line is consistent. And yet, in this context, the text of the resolution is unequivocal in two important respects. It requires that all participating states ensure that their territory and facilities are not used to assist rendition flights and that all participating states investigate promptly and thoroughly allegations—that last is an extremely important word—that their territory has been used to assist CIA-chartered flights.
	At its simplest, therefore, can the Minister confirm that the Government as representatives of an OSCE member will take the necessary action to deliver on the terms of the resolution? Will the Government, in so far as it is necessary so to do, ban access of rendition flights to UK airports and airspace, and will they issue an urgent and thorough inquiry into the matter?

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am speaking entirely on my own account, although I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition, whence I have got my information.
	The evidence in the Marty report and, most important, because it concerns this country's involvement, evidence unearthed by Stephen Grey, an investigative journalist, of the kidnapping or arrest of people by the United States—that is, by the CIA—and the transporting of them, in order that they may be tortured, to countries that are less squeamish about torturing people, may be purely verbal and unsubstantiated by written statements, but it is nevertheless pretty strong evidence and should be investigated immediately by the Government. Pending such an investigation, I am asking the Government to take steps now to prevent this country in future from playing any part, however small, in such a repugnant practice.
	I am not asking for a public inquiry. Public inquiries are very expensive and take far too long. Besides that, I appreciate that such an inquiry could compromise security by revealing secure information and sources. What I am asking is that the Government take steps immediately to prevent CIA rendition flights landing at any UK airport, whether civil or military, whether to refuel or for any other purpose, or making use of UK airspace. I do not think that it would be very difficult to do that. It might involve someone boarding CIA flights to check whether there were any trussed and manacled passengers on board. The Americans might find this unacceptable, to which I would say, "Hard cheese. If you want fuel, or whatever else, you accept our conditions or go elsewhere". There are limits to what crimes can be committed or connived at in the name of friendship.
	Condoleezza Rice's protestations of virtue leave me unimpressed. If the United States is not guilty, it should have no objection to co-operating. But I believe that the United States is guilty, and us with it, and it is up to us, not Condoleezza Rice, to keep our house clean.
	I have rarely had occasion to be ashamed of being British, but now I am, bitterly, because it is quite clear to those of us who have taken an interest in the matter that this country has in some ways been aiding and abetting this horrible practice—I hope and believe behind the Government's back. So far the Government have not wanted to know. I am asking the Government to stop burying their heads in the sand, to investigate the matter and, above all, to take immediate action to prevent rendition flights making any further use of our airports and our airspace.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, as we have heard, there is overwhelming evidence that the UK, while protesting its continuing support for human rights, is still concealing its own part in this illegal practice. All of us here will agree that potential terrorists have to be subjected to rigorous interrogation within the bounds of human rights law, but in the interests of anti-terrorism, in the months after 9/11 the UK, as a key coalition ally, ignored much that was going on in Bagram airport and other US bases in the region.
	Whatever we say on our own behalf, we seem to move in tandem with the United States. It was years before our Ministers began to comment publicly about Guantanamo, except in the well-known cases of British citizens. When President Bush accepted that Guantanamo was no longer a going concern, our Prime Minister and the Attorney-General followed suit. It was a relief to all that the Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions were not properly constituted courts, after months of pretence and pussyfooting.
	Ministers can depend on information and advice from their civil servants; the rest of us can believe only what we are told by friends and sources we trust. Let me recall briefly the case Benyam Mohammed al Habashi, an Ethiopian asylum seeker who came to Britain in 1994 and was granted leave to remain. For several years he lived in north Kensington. He was picked up in Karachi in April 2002 and then began a cycle of interrogation by Pakistan intelligence, the FBI, MI6 and others who suspected he was an al-Qaeda terrorist. He was taken into US custody for rendition to Morocco where he was beaten and tortured over an 18-month period before being taken to Guantanamo.
	During one interview, Benyam said that the MI6 officer was nice to him and gave him a cup of tea, saying he was innocent and that he would soon be sent home. Yet there is strong evidence that during the time he was in Morocco his torturers were relying on and probably conniving with British intelligence. The torture included many known and less known unpleasant techniques, including the cutting of his genitals with a scalpel. It is inconceivable that MI6 was unaware of his rendition and torture, and highly likely that its intelligence contributed to it. He has been languishing in Guantanamo ever since.
	On those rare occasions when Governments or law enforcement agencies admit their mistakes, they still pretend to be on the side of the angels and do so reluctantly. The EU Justice Commissioner, as we have heard, admitted for the first time last month that rendition takes place on European soil, and yet the UK is still in denial. The Minister said rather surprisingly at Question Time recently that he did not accept that there has been extraordinary rendition, especially in relationship to Guantanamo. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said during the debate on the Police and Justice Bill that,
	"there is no credible evidence that United Kingdom airspace or territory have been involved in unlawful rendition".—[Official Report, 4/7/06; col. 217.]
	How can anyone be reassured that there is no risk of torture? These statements on their own, however accurate, actually imply the contrary. They show that there is enough uncertainty about the UK's moral position to require a more open debate based on better analysis and detailed enumeration of the facts. It is helpful that the Government are now considering their reply to the reminder of the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the UK's obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture, but the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has been asking these questions for months and is always told that intelligence has all the information. Surely this is no way to conduct business in a fully functioning democracy.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I spoke in support of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, to the Civil Aviation Bill on 8 March. I raised my concerns about the role the British military might be being expected to play in connection with rendition flights, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for focusing on the military airfields in his Question tonight.
	The Government have confirmed that RAF Brize Norton and RAF Northolt have provided services to some 14 CIA aircraft movements. I remind your Lordships of the special nature of RAF Northolt. It is used for VIP flights, Royal flights and ministerial flights. It has limitations on the numbers of movements and heightened security because of the nature of the passengers who use it. RAF Brize Norton is also an important transport base where security is key.
	It is some 20 years since I was a station commander of an operational Royal Air Force airfield, but I would be surprised if the procedures for accepting visiting aircraft have changed much since that time. As station commander, I would learn of the expected movements for the following 24 hours at the early morning daily briefing. The station commanders of RAF Northolt and RAF Brize Norton will know when these flights happen; they will know where they have come from and they will know where they are going to. The operations wing staff will have checked whether it is appropriate to give clearance for landing and refuelling, which will perhaps require reference upwards to group or command headquarters or to the Ministry of Defence. These are international flights, which means that Customs needs to be informed. In sum, it is not possible for the Government to say that such flights are just part of the routine facilities provided between friendly nations.
	My concern is that military officers might be put in the position of assisting an illegal flight and subsequently be liable to prosecution as a result. That might, in the past, have sounded somewhat fanciful, but two other developments seem relevant. In Iraq, we see military personnel being held to account if it is thought that they might have broken international law. In Italy, two Italian intelligence officers have been arrested over allegations that they assisted in the rendition of Osama Mustafa Hassan to Egypt in 2003. Putting the two elements together, I worry how long it will be before we see a Royal Air Force station commander being investigated for providing facilities for CIA rendition flights.
	Can the Minister tell us whether he would support an instruction from the Ministry of Defence calling for all international flights by foreign aircraft that land at military airfields to be inspected to ensure that their passenger manifests are accurate and that there is no suspicion of illegal activity? Perhaps the best way forward on this is through the Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. We have tried it with the Civil Aviation Bill and with the Police and Justice Bill; perhaps we can deal with the military airfields question through the Armed Forces Bill. Would the Minister recommend that?

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway on initiating this debate in your Lordships' House.
	As your Lordships are well aware, by virtue of Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, we are obliged not to return anyone, whether resident in this country or rendered through it, to another country where there is a real risk that they will be tortured.
	After much confusion from the Government about the effect of international civil aviation law, the issue as to whether the Chicago Convention prevents investigations into civilian flights that are alleged to be involved in extraordinary rendition has now been settled. The Government clearly have the power to do so. The key question, therefore, is whether they are under a duty to do so.
	The argument centres on what facts initiate that duty. At present, the Government accept, in principle, that they would be willing to investigate where there is evidence of extraordinary rendition flights passing through the UK; but they have repeatedly denied that there is any such evidence.
	Until passenger lists of chartered civilian aircraft are provided to the UK authorities, nothing can be certain. However, the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, at paragraph 168, states that there is now,
	"a reasonable suspicion that certain aircraft passing through the UK may have been carrying suspects where they may have faced torture ... This reasonable suspicion is in our view sufficient to trigger the duty to investigate ... the Government should now take active steps to ascertain more details about the flights which it is now known used UK airports".
	The Government should explain to your Lordships tonight why they do not believe that such steps are necessary.
	Regardless of whether the Joint Committee on Human Rights is correct, the Government's continued resistance to carrying out investigations risks undermining public confidence in their assertions that the United Kingdom will never condone, or be complicit in, activities relating to torture. The Government must be seen to be doing all they can to show that the United Kingdom is an active adherent to the rule of international law.
	Reliance on assurances from the United States is not sufficient to resolve the issue. The United States has taken a far more restricted view on what it defines as torture. While it has retracted its extraordinary previous assertion that the practice has to involve excruciating and agonising pain, it is still unclear whether the view it takes of what constitutes torture would match the test applied by countries such as the United Kingdom.
	Furthermore, when assessing the risk of torture, it should be borne in mind that the United States applies a more-likely-than-not standard. The United Kingdom, by contrast, applies only a real-risk standard. So the United States could argue that it is not breaking the law by sending individuals to countries where there is only a real risk—the test that we apply.
	The Opposition have stated that the Government must establish beyond doubt that United Kingdom territory or airspace has not been used for extraordinary rendition, and we maintain this position. We accept the assurances of the Foreign Secretary that the United Kingdom would not facilitate the transfer of an individual from or through the United Kingdom where there are grounds to believe that that person would face a real risk of torture; but we are asking the Government to reconsider carrying out investigations into these flights.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has given us to debate these issues today and I acknowledge the work that has been done by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I shall deal with what might be regarded in the House this evening as mundane facts—just facts. I do not want to deal with conspiracy, even if it is thought to be a more colourful approach. I have noted some of the language that has been used in the House about this country: "the probable assumption", "the well grounded concern" and "the real suspicion". The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred twice to the fact that "we turn a blind eye". The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to "concealing illegal practice". Some of that language was used also in the debate on Amendment No. 6 on 28 March, when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, spoke, as he has more or less done tonight, of a private arrangement to conceal the purpose in which Her Majesty's Government were involved in the wake of 7/7 and which should be denied at all costs.
	The allegations that I hear and the conspiracy that is hinted at, which has been followed by the media and in this House, do not appear to be grounded in any real evidence whatever. I say to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that no "repugnant practice" is conducted by this country. I do not accept the allegation of misbehaviour by this country. I reiterate in the clearest terms that the Government have not approved, and will not approve, a policy of facilitating the transfer of individuals through the United Kingdom to places where there are substantial grounds to believe that they would face a real risk of torture—our definition of torture and not that of the United States. Accordingly, I can confirm that no arrangements have been made at military airfields—I shall return to this as I seek to answer all the questions that were asked—to refuel civilian aircraft with passengers allegedly "destined for extraordinary rendition". As I said in an Answer from this Dispatch Box recently, we have not been involved in extraordinary rendition. For those reasons, I do not accept that there is a need for an investigation. I do not accept that there is any evidence. I do not accept that there is any conspiracy. The Prime Minister was right to put it in terms.
	That may well not satisfy those who ask us to prove the negative—that something has not happened. But one can never prove that. That is never a proper test of any kind of evidence. It cannot be done. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that there is in that sense nothing that can be investigated that will satisfy anybody who adheres to such a conspiracy theory. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they have found no evidence of detainees being rendered through the United Kingdom or the overseas territories since 11 September 2001. There is no evidence of detainees being rendered through the United Kingdom or the overseas territories since 1997 where there were substantial grounds to believe that there was a risk of torture. The Government do not deport or extradite any person to another state where there are substantial grounds to believe that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or where there is a real risk that the death penalty will be applied. This position reflects our obligations under UK and international law, including the European Convention on Human Rights.
	Since before 11 September 2001, we have worked closely with the US to achieve our shared goal of fighting terrorism. Noble Lords have been gracious enough to say that that is important work. As part of that close co-operation, we have made it completely clear to the US authorities that we expect them to seek permission to render detainees via UK territory and airspace on every occasion, and that we will grant permission only if we are satisfied that the rendition would accord with UK law and our international obligations and how we understand them under the UN Convention Against Torture and the European Convention on Human Rights. We are clear that the US would not render a detainee through UK territory or airspace, including overseas territories, without our permission.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asks why we have not, in her view, investigated adequately. We have not investigated inadequately at all. We have not let this country down; absolutely not. We have carefully researched the question of US rendition via the United Kingdom. Jack Straw set out in his Written Ministerial Statement to the House of Commons on 20 January the results of an extensive review of all our official records back to May 1997. There were four cases in 1998 where the US requested permission to render one or more detainees—

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have no right of reply. I only wish to remind the Minister that it is totally conceded that the Government did not know. I have made that perfectly plain. I have given material which suggests a high level of suspicion, as recognised by certain independent authorities. My noble friend Lord Kingsland seeks an investigation on that basis. That is the issue.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not accept that there is a high level of probability. Noble Lords opposite are lawyers. As it happens, I am a probabilities mathematician, and I do not accept that this is in any sense a level of probability. It is a number of assertions for which there is no evidence.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister accept Toyber's dictum, that,
	"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not even understand the question.
	The term "rendition" has been used loosely. Whether any particular rendition is lawful depends on the facts of each individual case. The records of the four cases I have mentioned showed that the Government granted the United States' request in two cases, and refused it in the other two. In both cases where the request was agreed, the individuals were transferred through the United Kingdom in order to stand trial in the United States. There is no ambiguity in what happened on those occasions. Where we are requested to assist another state and our assistance would be lawful, we will decide whether or not to assist by taking the circumstances into account. We would not assist in any case if it would put us in breach of UK law or our international obligations.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, that there is no intelligence involvement in this either. I have no reason to believe that any government agency has acted in a way that does not conform to those obligations. There has been no collaboration with the CIA, and no responsibility for anything that might be claimed to have happened in other countries.
	I will not comment in detail on what the United States and Secretary Rice have said. Those are matters of record in this House. In response to requests for information about specific aircraft allegedly linked to the rendition operations, the Secretary of State for Transport published flight information held by or supplied to his department in respect of those aircraft. The Ministry of Defence did likewise in connection with the use of those aircraft in respect of military airfields. On military airfields, the United Kingdom has given the United States military and state aircraft clearance to overfly the United Kingdom and to land at military airfields in the United Kingdom without seeking prior permission. Where aircraft transit through military airfields for refuelling, for example, passengers do not leave the airfield; the airfield is required to record the registration number, the outward bound destination, the names of the pilots, the aircraft owner, but it does not record details of passengers. I think that is as true of the landings which have been referred to at Brize Norton or RAF Northolt. The noble Lord, Lord Garden, described the process and the routines involved in that and I do not believe I can add anything. I do not think there is any basis for investigating those flights either. We have clear assurances that the United States will not move people through this country or through its airspace on the basis of extraordinary rendition.
	It may be of interest to the House to note that there are 3.5 million takeoffs and landings in the United Kingdom and 1.1 million of them are non-commercial flights. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that the provision of passenger lists on that kind of basis, without grounds for believing that something is actually happening other than unsubstantiated allegations,would be an extraordinary operation and one that Ido not believe a Government of any party would contemplate.
	We have co-operated fully with the inquiries into rendition by the Council of Europe and the European Parliament, but neither Dick Marty's report of the 7 June nor any other document should lead to the conclusions that have been drawn in this House. His report was entitled, Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states. The interim report of the EP's temporary committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for transportation and illegal detention has also been looked into. I ask noble Lords to have a look at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's fourth report on Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism, published on 2 July. The all-party report concluded that although there has been speculation about complicity by this Government in unlawful rendition,
	"there has been no hard evidence of the truth of any of these allegations".
	That is hardly a basis for feeling ashamed of our nation. It is neither a police state nor a secret state.
	Our position on torture is absolutely clear. We unreservedly condemn the use of torture and we work hard with our international partners to eradicate this abhorrent practice. We abide by our commitments in international law in every respect. On the specific points about Benyam Mohammed al Habashi, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, he was interviewed once by the security services in Karachi in 2002, but the security services had no role in his capture or in his transfer to Pakistan. There is no evidence that they drew on or passed on matter to anyone and I do not believe that there is any significant or substantial evidence or probability that they did so.

Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I think the Minister said earlier that there was no evidence of any involvement at all by British intelligence agencies. Is it not the case that during the High Court case in March, concerning Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil al-Banna, the High Court established that the Government passed on to the United States authorities, either directly or at least indirectly, information that led to the illegal seizure and rendition to Guantanamo Bay of those two men and that on that basis the Government, while not accepting any legal requirement, accepted to make representations certainly on behalf of Bisher al-Rawi?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I will deal with the specific matter of Mr al-Rawi and Mr al-Banna who came into detention in the Gambia. I confirm in explicit terms here tonight that the United Kingdom did not request the detention of either of the men in the Gambia. We played no role in their transfer to Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay—no role.
	The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, said that he was concerned—and I am concerned—that we should not diminish or demean our democracy. We do not and we will not. Our standards are high and, as I said, I do not accept that we operate some sort of clandestine police state. That is not the United Kingdom that I know at all. The British Government are certainly committed to protecting the British people from the threat of terrorism, and who needs reminding of the scale of the threat? As we were commemorating 7/7, we saw another brutal and shameful attack: on the city of Mumbai. But we are quite clear in our own minds that we can succeed in meeting the challenge of international terrorism only if our own efforts are grounded in respect for, and the continued promotion of, international law and fundamental freedoms. That is as true in the area of rendition as in any other aspect of our counter-terrorist effort.
	Measures taken by states to combat terrorism must be legal, proportionate and justifiable. Promoting human rights, democracy, good governance and the rule of law is, in the end, the best guarantee of our own security, for it helps stifle the discontent on which the terrorist recruiters prey.
	I know that what I have said will not satisfy all noble Lords in the House. I am afraid that I will have to remain content in my own mind that in this country we do not engage in practices of the kind that have been described. It may be impossible to prove the negative, but that is no basis for people to assume that there has been the kind of behaviour that gave rise to some of the adjectives used. All noble Lords who wish to pursue this matter further should provide far more tangible evidence than the kind of allegations that we have heard. I myself have looked carefully at the Amnesty International report and at the reports made when Jack Straw investigated all the flights where we had contact with the United States, and I have looked at their submissions as well, and I say to noble Lords that these allegations are groundless and baseless and should not be repeated without proper evidence.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, did I really understand him to say that he did not consider extraordinary rendition to be repugnant?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are on a very strict timetable. The House will recognise that it is 8.42 pm and we are due to resume consideration of the Bill. I am very sorry.

Education and Inspections Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 18.

Lord Grocott: There was a suggestion before the break that it might be helpful to the Committee if I indicated where I hoped we might move to this evening. When we began today, there were 17 groups of amendments to consider. The agreed suggestion as to the objective of this evening, which has been widely discussed with the usual channels and many other Members who have been involved in the debate, was that we should aim to get to Amendment No. 180. In order to achieve that objective, we would need to deal with another 11 groups. Therefore, a sensible suggestion, which I hope will meet with agreement, is that we should carry on until midnight, when I would guess that we would have dealt with most of the 11 groups. The objective remains for us to get to AmendmentNo. 180, which will leave a reasonable amount of time to deal with the remaining groups. I hope that that meets with the approval of the Committee.

Baroness Walmsley: It does not meet with my approval. I think this is completely outrageous. It is a hole that the Government have dug for themselves through not listening to the Opposition parties who told them from the start that this was a highly contentious Bill, that we were totally dissatisfied with many of the replies we had had from Ministers in another place, and that it would require six days for Committee stage. The Government insisted on only scheduling four and now they are asking us to act in complete contravention of what the House has voted for—in other words, to rise at 10 o'clock, which is a time at which some of us can be compos mentis and deal with the business in a sensible and rational manner. Instead we are being asked to go until midnight which is completely outrageous.

The Countess of Mar: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. The noble Lord knows what my opinion is about going to bed at 10 o'clock. The Companion to the Standing Orders says it is a firm convention, although the noble Lord says it is a firm convention sometimes, and I might agree with him. The management of the business is absolutely atrocious. I have never seen so many amendments grouped together. When you have a number of speakers with different amendments, you are bound to get a long debate on each of these topics. It is time that the business managers looked to managing the business properly.

Lord Dearing: In support of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, what is settled between the usual offices is not well communicated to those of us who are not privy to their discussions. If I had known in advance we were going to sit until midnight, I could have made arrangements. As it is, I am not sure I am going to get home. I would have thought that 11 o'clock would suffice, given the relatively small number of amendments to be taken on the final two days.

Baroness Buscombe: I rise briefly in response to what has already been said. While I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—perhaps there should have been better communication with the Cross Benches—I point out that in eight years now of sitting on this Front Bench we have sat regularly until the early hours of the morning. I know that that is not the convention now, but there is a feeling that we do want to try and complete the Committee stages of this Bill prior to the Recess. It suits us on these Benches. While apologising to those who may feel that this is inconvenient, I must express my agreement to the proposal, notwithstanding the fact that it is not now, although it used to be, normal convention.

Lord Grocott: The Committee will understand that the job of the usual channels is a difficult one. We do the very best we can and one thing I am not modest about is that from the beginning of my tenure as Chief Whip, it was determined that I should try to give notice to the House of everything I possibly could, and most crucially that I should notify the House a year in advance of Recess dates. I was advised not to do that by all the wise heads because I was told we would occasionally find ourselves in a situation where, in order to meet the Recess date, we would need to sit a little later. And the proposal is, I emphasise to the House, a little later. The 10 o'clock rising time is an advisory rising time and can only be met with the co-operation of the House. We are a self-regulating House and I have no powers of authority over anyone in the House but that rising time has been met spectacularly well this Session. We have rarely sat long beyond 10 o'clock.
	I genuinely apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, but he will understand that this is an extremely important Bill. I worked in education myself. You cannot calculate how long Bills will take; all we can do is estimate. We have no powers to do anything other than estimate that the groups on this Bill on the first two days would take an average of35 minutes per group. Of course people involved in the Bill will say that that is an extremely important Bill and it will take a long time. The Police and Justice Bill, for example, took 20 minutes per group and everyone involved would say that was dealing with extremely important issues. I apologise to the House that this has inevitably meant that we go a little later tonight than I would have liked. It is extremely rare for this to happen. I stay here every night until the cat is put out so I have a greater vested interest than anyone does in completing the matter.

Baroness Walmsley: Will the noble Lord give way?

Lord Grocott: I am just about to finish, so the noble Baroness can contribute later. I simply say that we will get to the objective group tonight with the agreement of the Committee, which I seek—that is all that I can do. If we do not do that, we will not have achieved our agreed mutual objective of being a self-regulating House that can reach a reasonable objective at a reasonable time.

Baroness Walmsley: Will the noble Lord accept that there was an unusually long gap between Second Reading and the introduction of Committee on this Bill, and that large tranches of the Bill re-enact other legislation, so it does not need to be as large as it is? Will he also accept that the Government have already had considerable co-operation from these Benches? We have already agreed to these strange and enormous un-homogenous groupings and to sit late on the first two days of Committee. We also agreed to postpone a section of the Bill to be treated as Committee on Report, but I understand that the Official Opposition would not agree to that. To ask us to sit to midnight is asking us to go one step too far. I do not want to be obstructive to the House getting the business through; I want us to scrutinise the Bill properly. In the interests of doing that, I am afraid that I will regretfully have to accept what the noble Lord the government Chief Whip has proposed.

Baroness Buscombe: I want to explain briefly why we were not happy delaying scrutiny of certain parts of the Bill until Report. I fear—I hope that other Benches will accept this—that that would set a very dangerous precedent. It would put us on the path to what is happening in the Commons, which is not properly scrutinising at each stage. That was entirely my reason, and I hope that the noble Baroness will accept it.

Baroness Walmsley: I have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view. What I want most of all is to scrutinise the Bill properly; I just do not think that we can do it at midnight.
	I beg to move Amendment No. 92:
	Page 13, line 32, at end insert-
	"(g) a reduction in the statutory proportion of elected parent governors on a school's governing body"
	I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 103, 105, 107, 108, 110 andClause 33 stand part, which are grouped with Amendment No. 92. The amendments would prevent any alterations being made to the governance of schools that would result in the reduction of the statutory number of elected parent governors. Therefore, a foundation could not remove parent governors so that it could have a majority on the board. Far from being averse to parents having real power in schools, as claimed on an earlier group by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, we on these Benches believe that governing bodies should be representative of parents and the local community, no matter what model of governance they have otherwise.
	The Minister implied that we could not have trusts without them being given majority control of governing bodies. Why not? I do not see why, if the trust is really operating in the interests of the children and parents rather than in its own interests. Surely the most important people to whom a school should be accountable are the children and their parents. The provision for parent councils that are purely advisory and have no teeth is merely a sop which inadequately makes up for the removal of parents from the organ of real power—the governing body. For 30 years the governing bodies of schools in the UK have operated on a consensus—a partnership between parents, staff, the local authority and the wider community. The governing body of Alsager School, on which I had the honour to serve before I came to your Lordships' House, was a model of such a partnership. We are all aware of the difficulties of getting people to serve on governing bodies these days, because of the great legal burdens put on them. All the same, the model works well and has wide support.
	Parent governors are of particular value in creating links between the governors and the wider body of parents, feeding in their concerns and points of view, and representing the views of the governors to the parents. However, it is important that those parent governors are not just placemen. They have more credibility as independent representatives of parents' opinions when they have democratic legitimacy, so parents appointed to the board by sponsors just will not do.
	In his response to this amendment in another place, the Minister there said that the Bill allowed the right level of flexibility for schools to decide for themselves about the best model for them. He said that the necessary safeguards are built in, including a mechanism for removing a trust or its ability to appoint a majority of the governing body if the governing body feels that that is best. I ask noble Lords: do turkeys vote for Christmas? The idea of a trust school governing body voting to abolish itself is ludicrous. No. We need better safeguards than that.
	On the Question whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill, I say that the clause is quite unnecessary; and this is the kind of thing to which I referred a few moments ago in response to the business statement. Parent councils are purely advisory and no substitute for properly elected parent governors and proper accountability through the ballot box of their election.
	I am passionately in favour of meaningful involvement of parents in their children's schools. I have always been a member of the PTA of my children's schools. I believe that they give the opportunity for vital links between parents and teachers. But parents need an adequate voice on the decision-making body of the school and that is the board of governors. As I said earlier, the parent council is purely advisory and any school which really wants one can set it up now. It does not need this legislation to allow it to do so. It is another of the many parts of the Bill which are superfluous. We are wasting our time talking about them. No, this is a sop since the shift from a community school to a foundation school would entail the reduction of elected parent governors from three to one. Others could be appointed but they would never be regarded as being truly independent of the sponsors and no sponsor would resist the temptation to appoint only those who he believes concur with his point of view.
	The benefits of parent councils are not clear. Why would they be better than three elected parent governors? Why would they be better than a good PTA where home-school links are so often forged? Why, if the Government really want to strengthen the power of parents, do they not strengthen the role of parent governors rather than reducing their number? The Government say one thing about parents and do the opposite. From their deeds shall you know them. I commend the amendment to the Committee, and beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: Amendment No. 126, which stands in my name, refers to Clause 33. Many Church schools—and probably not only Church schools—already have organisations supporting the school with all kinds of exotic and local names. I am fully supportive of the involvement of parents; I hope that we all share that view. What these groups have in common is that they include friends of the school and members of the local church and community, as well as parents and staff connected with the school. That is a good thing and it is to be encouraged.
	The wording of Clause 33 is exclusive. Members of these parent councils are parents and no one else. By amending that to "include" parents, AmendmentNo. 126 seeks to clarify the point that these friends' organisations could perfectly well fulfil the purpose of a parent council. For many schools, having two separate bodies would be ridiculous and unnecessary. The clause as drafted would have the effect, therefore, of destroying a local system that often works well to the advantage of the school and the community. I hope that the Government will reconsider the phrasing of the clause.

Baroness Buscombe: I support the right reverend Prelate's amendment, which would allow non-parents to be members of parent councils. We welcome the positive contribution to schools from the local community, but we want to ensure that the influence of parents of children currently at the school is not watered down. In so far as the governing body welcomes the involvement of "friends" of the parent council, we would support that choice. The Bexley Business Academy is a good example of where the "friends" of a parent council form a tier of greater engagement, whereas other parents can just keep in touch by attending general meetings. However, allthe members are parents. This might provide an opportunity for greater fundraising initiatives and more integrated community involvement. I hope that any parent council that admitted non-parents would be established with the appropriate safeguards.
	We cannot support the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. As I hope I made clear at Second Reading, where the Bill provides the opportunity for schools to have greater independence to present parents with higher standards and a greater quality of choice, and where those reforms promise a robust and sustainable future for our schools, I will support those provisions. However, we believe that, taken together, these amendments would weaken the Bill. They would render completely unclear the determination of proposals for changing the majority of governors to foundation governors, for a community school to become a trust, and for referrals to the adjudicator. We do not feel that these amendments make a constructive contribution to the Bill.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before we conclude this short debate, let us be very clear that, in the Bill, we are offering parents a far weaker alternative to that of being a parent governor. Being a parent governor is a legal position and carries precise responsibilities. The role has been very well carried out in this country. Our system of governing bodies is admired in other education systems. It has given ordinary citizens a real responsibility and involvement in their schools. A parent council is all very well—there is nothing to prevent it from living side by side with a governing body—but at the end of the day it simply has no real power.
	There is nothing in the right reverend Prelate's amendment that we would object to. It relates to including non-parents on a parent council—that is fine. But it is nothing to do with the real substitution of genuine power for what is, at best, an advisory position. We should be absolutely clear that, if my noble friend's amendments are not agreed to and the Bill goes through as it stands, we will have removed from parents a great deal of real power and real involvement in their schools, and I think that we will live to regret that.

Lord Adonis: Sometimes when the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for whom I have great respect, speaks, I have to pinch myself to check that we are not doing something that is genuinely outrageous, because the terms in which her arguments are made are very strong. But what we are doing here is a perfectly sensible adaptation of existing practice within the schools system. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that what we are seeking to do is a great and radical departure. It is not. The model of governance that we propose for parents is precisely that which currently applies in many thousands of voluntary-aided schools, which are perfectly adequately managed within the state system. I am aware of no representation that parents feel that these schools are less well governed than other schools or that they feel less engaged than parents in other schools—indeed, if parental engagement and attachment to schools is measured by the popularity of schools and the willingness of parents to apply for their children to go to these schools, then the opposite might be held to be the case.
	In fact, in voluntary-aided schools there is no requirement for parent councils—none. I am not saying that the one is a trade-off against the other. We have looked at best practice in this area. In many trust schools, the majority of governors will not be appointed; it is an option to appoint up to the majority. We expect that in many trust schools a minority of the governors would be appointed by the trust, in which case there will be a larger number of parent governors. However, where the majority of governors are appointed by the trust—and that is done by consent with the school or through the process of competition and choice of the best school that can be provided, where it is a new school—they will take on real overall responsibility for governance in the way that the Churches do in their schools. We believe that it would be good practice to have other mechanisms to ensure effective consultation with parents over and above the arrangement for parent councils.
	As Bagehot once famously said of Parliament, the,
	"test of a machine is the work it turns out".
	If the evidence from those schools that are governed on this basis is that they are well governed, popular in their locality and have a very strong community mission, and that parents feel well served and are willing to send their children to them, I simply do not understand the alarmist statements made by the two noble Baronesses as to the evil effects that this would have. This is one option that schools and local decision makers can pursue where they think it appropriate. They will do so in the knowledge that it would be giving majority control to a trust whose bona fides they would willingly have accepted as part of the arrangement for the trust school to be taken forward. On that basis, and given our experience of voluntary-aided schools, this seems a perfectly sensible emulation of existing good practice in the schools system and not some breach of fundamental principles. The more one looks at the state education system, the less fundamental they appear, in any event.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for his reply. I accept what he says about voluntary-aided schools perhaps benefiting from having more elected parent governors on their board of governors. I emphasise that we are talking about elected, not appointed, parent governors. The parents in those voluntary-aided schools may feel that they are more involved with the school anyway because of their shared faith, but we are not talking about faith schools—well, we are in some cases because some of these trust schools will be run by faith groups, but not all of them will be, so they will not all have that shared faith by which the parents can feel that they are involved with the school and that the board of governors, whoever they are, represents their point of view.
	We are talking about many schools that will not be run by faith groups, so to reduce the number of elected parent governors on those boards to a paltry one person who is supposed to represent perhaps up to 2,000 sets of parents is very unsatisfactory on the part of a Government who say that they want to strengthen the power of parents. I would have thought that the Government should be saying, "Let's have four, five or more elected parent governors", but no. What are the Government afraid of? Do they think that parents do not want the best for the school? Do they think that they cannot get enough parents to become involved in the board of governors? I cannot understand why the Government are so much against this point of view. They are supposed to believe in democracy and real power for parents. Yet in practice they are taking power away from them. I simply do not understand it, but I am clearly getting nowhere, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
	Clause 18 agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Publication of proposals for alteration of school]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 94 to 100:
	Page 14, line 2, at end insert "under this subsection"
	Page 14, line 3, leave out "and"
	Page 14, line 4, leave out "or a foundation special school"
	Page 14, line 6, at end insert-
	"( ) an increase in the number of pupils in any relevant age group,"
	Page 14, line 10, at end insert ", and
	(c) in the case of a foundation special school, it consists of any one or more of the following- (i) an enlargement of the premises, (ii) an increase in the number of pupils for whom the school is organised to make provision, and (iii) a change in the type of special educational needs for which the school is organised to make provision."
	Page 14, line 24, at end insert-
	"(4A) This section has effect subject to section (Restriction on power of governing body to publish foundation proposals)."
	Page 14, line 26, at end insert-
	""relevant age group" has the same meaning as in SSFA 1998."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 101:
	After Clause 19, insert the following new clause-
	"RESTRICTION ON POWER OF GOVERNING BODY TO PUBLISH FOUNDATION PROPOSALS
	(1) The governing body of a school specified in the first column of the Table below may not publish proposals under section 19 for a prescribed alteration of a kind specified in the second column, except with the consent of-
	(a) the trustees of the school, and (b) the person or persons by whom the foundation governors are appointed.
	
		
			 TABLE 
			 School Prescribed alteration 
			 1. A foundation school which, immediately before the commencement date, was a foundation school having a foundation. A relevant change in the instrument of government. 
			 2. A voluntary school. A change of category from voluntary controlled school or voluntary aided school to foundation school. 
			 3. A foundation school which, having been a voluntary school immediately before the commencement date, changed category to foundation school on or after that date. A relevant change in the instrument of government. 
		
	
	(2) For the purposes of this section, a "relevant change" in the instrument of government of a school is a change which results in the majority of governors being foundation governors.
	(3) In this section-
	"the commencement date" means the day on which this Part comes into force, otherwise than merely for the purpose of enabling orders or regulations to be made; "prescribed alteration", in relation to a maintained school, means an alteration prescribed under section 18."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Proposals under section 19: procedure]:
	[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
	Clause 20 agreed to.
	Clause 21 [Right of governing body to determine own foundation proposals]:
	[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 104:
	Page 15, line 27, leave out from "foundation" to end ofline 28.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 105 to 108 not moved.]

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 109:
	Page 16, line 1, leave out from "foundation" to end of line 2 and insert "or together with both the acquisition of a foundation and a relevant change in the instrument of government"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 110 to 113 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 114:
	Page 16, line 13, leave out "other than the local education authority"

Baroness Buscombe: I move AmendmentNo. 114 and speak to Amendment No. 115. Both amendments would remove the right of the local authority to refer proposals involving the acquisition of a trust by a school to the schools adjudicator. We do not see why the power is necessary, given the lack of any similar measure with regard to foundation proposals. We believe that the guidance on the acquisition of trusts, to which the governing body must have regard, is a sufficient safeguard.
	I would like to draw noble Lords' attention to the Government's draft guidance, School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2006. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the regulations sets out the circumstances where the local authority can take advantage of its rights under the section. The circumstances are as follows. For the purposes of Section 21(3), a local authority may only require that such proposals specified in sub-paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) are referred to and adjudicated if:
	"(a) the governing body has failed to adequately fulfil the requirements set out in"
	the guidance
	"on consultation;
	(b) the governing body has failed to have regard to the responses to the consultation; or
	(c) the local education authority consider that the foundation will have a negative impact on standards".
	While these criteria seem superficially restrictive, the terms used still leave a great deal of power in the hands of the local authority. This sample suggests many pitfalls. How is the local authority to demonstrate that the governing body has failed to have regard to responses to the consultation? Would the governing body have had to have acted extremely unreasonably in its decision or would it be sufficient to cite a handful of vocal opponents to the proposed trust in evidence? Similarly, there are concerns about the nature of a "negative impact on standards". Does this refer to standards at the school or the standards of all schools in the area? If all schools in the area, could a local authority not contrive some spurious argument based on its opposition to the trust model to justify referral to the adjudicator? It is difficult to decide what impact a foundation will have until it actually runs the school.
	Such ambiguities risk allowing local authorities to thwart the movement towards the system of independent state schools that the Bill intends to create—a principle that has received support right across your Lordships' House, from the Back Benches opposite to those that cross the House and those behind me. I believe that the statutory guidance together with the measures in Clauses 32 and 33 offer sufficient safeguards to remove the right of referral to the adjudicator. I remain unconvinced that the decision to acquire a trust differs to such a degree from becoming a foundation school that a special right of review is needed in this case. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 116, 116A and 116B, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley.
	Amendment No. 116 is probing, because I wondered whether the Minister could explain a little more. We were unable to understand what the regulations were saying on this occasion. I wondered if the Minister could explain the regulations to us. Paragraph 3 is a lovely piece of speak:
	"Regulations under section 20 may restrict the matters to which a local education authority may have regard in deciding whether to require proposals to be referred to the adjudicator"
	and so forth. We would be grateful if the Minister could explain precisely what those regulations are trying to get at.
	Amendments Nos. 116A and 116B we are putting forward on behalf of the Association of Colleges, which is worried about the position of further education colleges, particularly in relation to post-16 education and 14 through to 19 years. Clause 22 sets out the rights of interested bodies on any proposals made under Clause 20 and the referral of these proposals to the adjudicator in certain circumstances. Under the terms of the Bill, any school that wanted to establish or expand the sixth form would have to apply to the local authority for approval. We discussed a little earlier that the school organisation committees will now be abolished and it will be a matter for decision by the local authority itself. Yet, post-16 education is funded not by local authorities but by the local learning and skills councils. Therefore, local authorities would be in a position of approving new sixth-form education and the numbers associated with that, but with no accompanying responsibility to fund it. Many local authorities want the majority or even all the schools in their area to have sixth forms and the Government have made this easier under the terms of the five-year plan. New school sixth forms should offer to local youngsters different provision from that which is already available. That is not always the case. The opening of a new school sixth form can often duplicate courses at other post-16 providers. There needs to be a stronger system than that proposed under the terms ofClause 22, whereby the local authority will make a decision and only then can the adjudicator be asked to make a judgment.
	Amendment No. 116A would enable the Learning and Skills Council and the local dioceses to refer any proposals to the adjudicator before the local authority takes the decision. The Association of Colleges has concerns that it would be much more difficult for the adjudicator to overturn an original decision and that, when asked, he or she would be able to intervene earlier in the process to ensure that all local views are taken into account. He or she is an independent arbiter. Their involvement would reduce the possibility of long running disputes that may occur when various bodies disagree.
	Amendment No. 116B would specifically allow not only the Learning and Skills Council but also schools and colleges to refer a proposal to the adjudicator where it relates to provision for 14 to 19 year-olds. That would ensure that the Learning and Skills Council is not put in the difficult position of trying to represent the views of the Government as well as those of local providers. The colleges feel very strongly that they should be able to speak for themselves. The Government rightly want to promote choice, but it is vital that colleges and schools can participate actively in the decisions to ensure that the widest possible choice is offered locally. After all, they are the ones on the ground who best understand the needs of local people.

Lord Adonis: In respect of the noble Baroness's last remarks, I understand the points that she makes about the post-16 provision and the need for full consultation. The Learning and Skills Council and local colleges would be consulted about the proposals.
	With regard to the referral of trust proposals to the adjudicator, the important distinction that needs to be made is that a trust proposal of itself would not make any difference to post-16 provision or the post-16 character of a school. Any school, whether a foundation school, a non-foundation school or a trust school, that wishes to change the post-16 character of the school would need to publish statutory proposals under the arrangements that we debated earlier today. They would need to go through the statutory processes, including local decision making and, in practice, local decision makers would not be able to make those decisions unless there was a funding agreement with the Learning and Skills Council. Indeed, there are recent decisions by the adjudicator in respect of that matter. The adjudicators have not been prepared to agree to post-16 provision where no funding arrangement agreed by the Learning and Skills Council is in place.
	I understand the noble Baroness's point that the body providing the funding and having overall responsibility for planning this provision must be a party to decisions. In fact, that is the case. The key point about the local authority as the guardian of the interests of the local community having power to refer to the adjudicator, but not the Learning and Skills Council, is that in respect of post-16 provision a trust proposal could not also double as a proposal to open a sixth form or change the post-16 character of a school. I hope that that reply meets the point.
	On who can refer trust proposals to the adjudicator, or, taking the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, whether there should be referrals to the adjudicator at all or whether local decision-making should not involve the right of a local authority to refer to the adjudicator, I believe that we have struck a fair balance. We want the local authority to have the right to be able to refer on the basis of standards at the school, not more general standards, or inadequate consultation. The local authority must judge for itself whether it believes standards are at risk by a trust proposal or that there has been inadequate consultation. Having done that, this is then a matter for the adjudicator to decide. We think that that is the right way to proceed.
	However, on Amendments Nos. 114, 115 and 116, we do not think that it is right to have an open-ended right of appeal. The local authority can be trusted to make sensible judgments on behalf of the community to refer trust proposals to the adjudicator, which is the basis on which we should act in this regard. We think that we have struck a fair balance. We could have gone further and given wider rights of reference to the adjudicator, but we thought that the role of the local authority was most important. That would seek to take account of others who are making these decisions. Equally, on something as important as the acquisition of a trust, which could lead to the appointment by that trust of a majority of the governing body, if there are concerns by the local authority that this would have a prejudicial effect on standards or that there hasbeen inadequate consultation, it is right that this should be subject to some independent review. Local adjudicators, who are now skilled in taking decisions of this kind about school organisation in the best interests of education in that community, are the appropriate people to make these decisions.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reassurances on this. I understand the distinction that he is making between expansion proposals and proposals for setting up a trust and a foundation. I will read carefully what he has said. I think that I understand the position, and I am grateful to him.

Baroness Buscombe: I almost echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, with regard to my Amendments Nos. 114 and 115. I see some value in what the Minister has explained about the difference between foundation and trust, although I remain a little concerned that there is an inconsistency. That said, I thank him for his full reply. I want to take this away, have some further thought on it and will read what the Minister has said in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Rights of interested bodies in relation to proposals under section 20]:
	[Amendments Nos. 115 to 116B not moved.]
	Clause 22 agreed to.
	Clause 23 agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Proposals for removal of foundations or reduction in foundation governors]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 117:
	Page 18, line 32, leave out subsection (1) and insert-
	"(1) This section applies to any foundation or foundation special school having a foundation if either or both of the following conditions is met.
	(1A) Condition A is that the school was established (whether or not as a foundation or foundation special school) in pursuance of proposals falling to be implemented under Schedule 2.
	(1B) Condition B is that the school acquired its foundation in pursuance of proposals falling to be implemented under regulations under section 23."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 25 agreed to.
	Clause 26 [Proposals under section 24: implementation]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 118:
	Page 20, line 37, at end insert-
	"(6A) The implementation of proposals under section 24 is not to be taken as authorising any change in the religious character of the school or the loss of religious character."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Amendments relating to school organisation]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 119 and 120:
	Page 135, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert-
	"(1) Section 3 of the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 (transactions for which advice or consent of the Board is required) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)-"
	Page 135, line 37, at end insert-
	"(3) After subsection (1) insert-
	"(1A) The governing body of a church school in England shall not, unless it has obtained the consent in writing of the Board for the diocese in which the school is situated, publish proposals under section 19 of the 2006 Act-
	(a) where the school is a voluntary school, for a change of category to foundation school, or (b) where the school is a foundation school, for a change in the instrument of government which results in the majority of governors being foundation governors.
	(1B) Subsection (1)(a)(i) does not apply in any case where by virtue of subsection (1A) the consent of the Board is required."
	(4) In subsection (6), for "subsection (2)" substitute "subsection (1A) or (2)"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 121 to 123 not moved.]
	Clause 32 [Requirements as to foundations]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 124:
	Page 22, leave out lines 23 to 30 and insert-
	"(1) This section applies to any foundation or foundation special school having a foundation if any one or more of the following conditions is met.
	(1A) Condition A is that the school was established as a foundation or foundation special school in pursuance of proposals falling to be implemented under Schedule 2 to the Education and Inspections Act 2006.
	(1B) Condition B is that the school-
	(a) acquired its foundation, or (b) became a school whose instrument of government provides for the majority of governors to be foundation governors, in pursuance of proposals falling to be implemented under regulations under section 23 of that Act.
	(1C) Condition C is that the school changed category from voluntary aided school to foundation school in pursuance of proposals falling to be implemented under regulations under section 23 of that Act and has an instrument of government providing for the majority of governors to be foundation governors."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 125 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendments Nos. 125A to 125D not moved.]
	Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 33 [Parent councils for certain foundation or foundation special schools]:
	[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
	Clause 33 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
	Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: moved Amendment No. 128:
	After Clause 35, insert the following new clause-
	"REVERTER OF SITES
	Nothing in Schedule 22 to SSFA 1998 (disposals of land in case of certain schools and disposals and discontinuance) shall apply to land that is subject to the trust arising under section 1 of the Reverter of Sites Act 1987 (c. 15) (right of reverter replaced by trust) or would be so subject if it ceases to be used for or in connection with the provision of education."

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to AmendmentsNos. 130, 131, 132 and 137 in my name. They relate to technical matters relating to ownership of sites. We understand that new foundation schools will be owned not by the local authority but by one or more foundations. When such schools close or are moved to new premises, the public interest in the land needs to be preserved. However, the Bill needs to recognise that the provisions intended to protect the public interest might also catch existing schools, owned not by the local authority but by trustees, principally among some Church schools where there is already a strong existing body of law and practice.
	Amendment No. 128 relates to reverter of sites. It makes a tentative proposal, broadly worded, to limit the circumstances in which the premises of closed schools revert to the original landowner. The amendment would have the effect of placing some small limits on reverter in the case of the discontinuance of certain schools. Amendment No. 130 to Schedule 4 recognises on the one hand the right of the local authority to make decisions about the use of land following the closure of a school, and on the other hand the right of the trustees to compensation for costs and expenses they have incurred in waiting for a decision. These costs are likely to be those of boarding up, providing security for the premises to avoid vandalism and depredation of a closed school building.
	Amendment No. 131 to Schedule 4 would have the effect of ensuring that two obligations working in opposite directions did not make it impossible for the trustees of a closed school to do the right thing. The terms of their trust might make it impossible to pass proceeds of sale to a third party even though that was the decision of the local authority supported by the adjudicator. The amendment would have the effect of overriding the limitations imposed by the trust.
	Amendment No. 132 would require a public hearing where the adjudicator is to determine the destiny of proceeds of sale. That would seem to be best practice and indeed the adjudicator might hold a public hearing in any case. That would simply require that such a hearing was held. The final amendment in this grouping in my name is Amendment No. 137, which concerns the disposal of hard play areas attached to closed school premises. The Government and Sport England are committed not to dispose of playing fields unless that can be avoided. Hard play areas around a closed school could, we understand, attract the interest of those seeking to prevent their disposal. The most obvious problem for us would be in relation to the disposal of former school premises in an urban area without playing fields, as generally understood, with a playground and a tennis court. If the Secretary of State were to rule that the hard play areas in such cases were to be retained for educational purposes, which although it might be illogical is not inconceivable, that could blight the premises and render it virtually or actually impossible for the trustees to dispose of the land or gain any benefit from its disposal. In those perhaps unlikely circumstances, we propose that the Secretary of State would have to acquire land that he had blighted from the trustees. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: My amendment in this group is Amendment No. 132E. A very similar amendment was tabled by one of the Labour rebels in the other place. Since there do not seem to be too many Labour rebels around in your Lordships' House this evening, it is up to the real opposition lay it and to stimulate a debate a debate here.
	The amendment probes the issues of land transfer. The Education and Skills Select Committee expressed concern about trust schools having control of their assets. It said:
	"We are also not convinced that Trusts need to have absolute control over their physical assets in order to function effectively. If the degree of control was more limited it would allay fears about disposal of assets. We recommend that the Government looks at this issue again with a view to establishing much greater safeguards on the transfer of assets to Trusts through detailed restrictions on disposal of assets and other issues or by a leasehold-style arrangement".
	The model of independent trust schools that own their own assets as described in the original White Paper which preceded this Bill raises questions over who will be contractually responsible for the service charges. We understand that the Department for Education and Skills might be expected to announce that when schools becoming trusts are part of PFI schemes, the liability for paying contractors will remain with the local authority. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is the case. It means that investors will be concerned about the future of exclusivity arrangements with local authorities because in the past the carrot for the private sector has been to carry out all the future work—maintenance, refurbishment, cleaning and so on—over the whole local authority's school estate. But if over the course of time eight out an estate of 20 schools become trust schools, for example, the business opportunities are significantly cut because you can no longer have the exclusivity arrangements. So it is possible that private contractors might respond to that new business risk by increasing the cost of schemes during their initial phases, which would cost the taxpayer more.
	An alternative solution that the department might favour is to make building schools for the future the only option for capital investment, forcing all schools to take part. I wonder whether that is the case. Claudia Wood from the Social Market Foundation has said:
	"The guidelines for BSF are quite stringent and the LEA has a huge role in approving schemes. So if the trust school wanted to do something that was slightly out of the guidelines, it would still have to negotiate that with the LEA, which detracts greatly from their so-called independence".
	It is clear that the limited freedom implied by Building Schools for the Future raises questions about the need to transfer school assets to trusts in the first place. Will the Minister tell me whether the assumptions that I have made are true and how Building Schools for the Future might affect the situation for business?

Lord Adonis: I hope that the noble Baroness does not feel that she has reached her vocation as a Labour rebel but, if she does, she is very welcome to join us on this side of the House.
	My understanding of Amendment No. 132E, to which she spoke and which as she said was moved in another place, is that it would enlarge the scope for local authorities in seeking transfers so that land could be sold, for example, for housing or to provide a facility such as a transport depot or a refuse site. What a local authority might seek to get a transfer order in respect of a school site for is left much more to the discretion of the authority. Our concern on this amendment is to protect the educational interest, which local authorities should be seeking to safeguard over the transfer of educational sites.
	I should make it clear that the requirements on trusts are that they should operate for educational purposes and in the best interests of the educational community they serve, not to engage in property transactions of a kind for which there are plenty of regulations laid down to prevent them if they do not remain true to their purpose. That is why we have said that the stated purpose for which a local authority may seek a transfer order should relate to the purposes of the school, to another educational use or to the delivery of children's services, and not beyond that purpose. We seek simply to safeguard educational interests in the case of an authority which might seek to take the opportunity of a transfer to trust status to try to transfer land right out of educational purpose. Earlier in our debates the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to the important issue of playing fields. Let us be clear on what will happen if local authorities are given wider rights. It would not be the essential core buildings of a school which local authorities not having regard to the educational interest might seek to transfer to other purposes, it will be ancillary sites. The most obvious of those sites will be playing fields or vacant land. Our concern is to safeguard the educational interest.
	In respect of the PFI deal issue raised by the noble Baroness, I am advised that even though the local authority remains the signatory to the PFI deal, the governing body would have to pay the unitary charge. However, it could not unilaterally break any agreement made by the predecessor governing body. It would inherit the obligations that were made before, so there would be no change in that respect.
	I turn now to the five amendments in this group spoken to by the right reverend Prelate. Amendments Nos. 128 and 131 concern the details of trusts and trustee rights which have consequences in charity law as well as in education law. I have requested my officials to work further with the Church's lawyers, and if necessary with the Charity Commission, to explore these highly technical matters. I will keep him informed of progress with a view to reaching an agreed position before we come to the Report stage. Amendments Nos. 130 and 132 impose duties on the adjudicator in respect of compensation to trustees for costs while the adjudicator considers referrals, and a duty to hold a public hearing. Neither of these provisions, we believe, are required in the Bill, but are better dealt with in guidance to which the adjudicator has a statutory duty to have regard. We have made guidance available to the House which sets out our position on these matters and it is our intention that this guidance will be further developed in the light of experience.
	Amendment No. 137 would require the Secretary of State to purchase playing fields and adjacent land from trustees when he refuses consent for playing field disposals under the provisions of Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which has been referred to several times in our debates. This section covers protections for school playing fields to prevent them being sold off to the detriment of the sporting facilities available to the school and the local community. The provisions of Schedule 4 bring the trustees of foundation and voluntary schools in line with other categories of school in having to seek the consent of the Secretary of State when disposing of any playing field land which has been provided or enhanced at public expense. We have considered representations made by Church lawyers in this area, but we believe that the extension of protection to playing field land in these respects is right. There is rightly no requirement in existing legislation, the 1998 Act, for the Secretary of State to purchase land when he refuses consent to disposal. In some cases that could be a hugely expensive undertaking and we do not believe it would be right to introduce such a provision for some categories of owners of publicly funded land rather than others.
	We understand that the concern behind the amendment relates to hard play areas, playgrounds directly attached to school buildings which come under the provision of the Act. Should the Secretary of State refuse an application for disposal, it could blight the sale of a discontinued school owned by trustees, including Church trustees. However, a general consent for disposal of such land already exists from the Secretary of State, provided that the land is not needed by another school. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
	Finally, the provisions of Schedule 4 allow a local authority to seek the transfer to it of surplus publicly funded school land that is owned by governing bodies, foundation bodies, or trustees. We have deliberately restricted the purposes for which such a transfer can be sought, so that school land continues to be used for the benefit of the children and young people in the area.
	The great majority of the government amendments to Schedule 4 in the group are technical, consequential and repetitive, and I have written to noble Lords about them. School land can be owned in a number of ways by different categories of bodies, reflecting the extremely complex history of the development of school sites. It has been acquired and funded through a number of routes. It is necessary for legislation relating to school land to include all those possibilities, and the amendments seek to tie up loose ends.
	The provisions in Schedule 4 mean that where there is not local agreement to disposal or reinvestment proposals, or a claim by a local authority for a share of the proceeds relating to public funding, the schools adjudicator will determine. The amendments, which have been discussed in detail with the Churches that are principally affected, make clear that provisions apply only to land that is acquired or has been enhanced by public funding and to that share of proceeds that can be attributed to public funding and not that share that could be attributed to trustees in respect of that land. They also define public finding more clearly, and they make procedures simpler and clearer.
	They provide that where a local authority successfully objects to a proposed land sale or deployment on the grounds of local need, the land should be transferred to the local authority expeditiously for proper consideration, which meets one of the major concerns that the Churches had. They also replace a complete moratorium on disposal until any matters referred to the schools adjudicator are determined, with a moratorium only where the authority has objected to the disposal itself in question, which we think is a more sensible way of proceeding. I hope that has given the right reverend Prelate some comfort.

Baroness Walmsley: Before the right reverend Prelate responds and, I presume, withdraws the amendment, I have one point to make on my amendment. As I understand it, the Minister said that the governing body will have to undertake the agreement that it already had on PFI, and it is liable for the costs. Is there any mechanism for preventing the upward pressure on costs that might result from this break-up of the school system, so that PFI private sector partners no longer have an opportunity for an exclusivity arrangement with the local authority? Is there any way in which the school can resist upward pressure on the PFI costs?

Lord Adonis: My understanding is that the nature of PFI contracts and the relationship between schools and local authorities under PFI contracts is not affected in any way by a move to trust status. I will happily write to the noble Baroness about that if my understanding is in any way incorrect. They are still maintained schools. The local authority under Building Schools for the Future, for example, where the obligations are undertaken, maintains the same responsibilities as it does for other maintained schools. My understanding is that it makes no difference at all, but I will write to the noble Baroness if I am incorrect on any point.

Lord Lucas: I have a quick question. The local authority appears to be the only body that can intercept the land in this way to use for educational or similar purposes. If the land is required by the proposer of the new school who is not the local education authority, does the LEA have any obligation to act on its behalf to make sure that the land stays in educational use? Or is it possible that the LEA could frustrate the new school by denying it access to old premises?

Lord Adonis: The local authority can act only in very specific circumstances relating to other education or children's services' uses for the lands. The noble Lord asked whether that other use could include the creation of a completely new school, fulfilling the local authority's duties to permit diversity and choice. My understanding is that where the local authority formed the view that such a new provision was in the local public interest, it would be a legitimate reason for it to seek to act. Could others seek to oblige it to do so? The could do so indirectly through the provisions in the opening clauses of the Bill, which require local authorities to have regard to the promotion of choice, diversity and to take full account of parental demands, but they could not refer proposals to the adjudicator. It is important to understand why. We are talking about school sites. There has to be some overriding public interest for the rights of trustees or the governors of schools to be overridden in the decisions that they wish to take about the disposal of sites which are legitimately theirs.

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: I am very grateful to the Minister for his response to Amendment No. 128. I am also grateful to him for the discussions which we have already had about these matters. At this hour, it is difficult to take in all the details of his response and I shall read them very carefully. But I am grateful for his reassurance of further discussions. In light of that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
	Schedule 4 [Disposals and changes of use of land]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 129A to 129BX:
	Page 150, line 3, leave out "A6" and insert "A6A"
	Page 150, line 3, at end insert "and paragraph A22"
	Page 150, line 11, after "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 150, line 12, leave out "those proceeds" and insert "the proceeds of disposal"
	Page 150, line 12, at end insert-
	"( ) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraphs A3 and A4, the "publicly funded proceeds of disposal" means the proceeds of disposal which are attributable to the land having been acquired or enhanced in value, or both, as the case may be, as mentioned in the relevant paragraph or paragraphs of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph A1."
	Page 150, line 17, at end insert "publicly funded"
	Page 150, line 19, after second "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 150, line 30, leave out "(6)" and insert "(6)(a)"
	Page 150, line 32, leave out from "where" to second "are" in line 34 and insert "the authority give notice of their objection to the disposal in accordance with sub-paragraph (6)(a), the relevant requirements in relation to such a notice"
	Page 150, line 38, leave out from "disposal" to end of line 42 and insert "on or after the expiry of the requisite period until the relevant requirements in relation to such a notice are met."
	Page 150, line 42, at end insert-
	"( ) The "relevant requirements" in relation to a notice given under sub-paragraph (6)(a) are met if-
	(a) the adjudicator has approved the disposal on a reference made under paragraph A3(1), or (b) the authority have withdrawn notice of their objection to the disposal in accordance with sub-paragraph (8)."
	Page 150, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 on page 151 and insert-
	"(11) If the authority give either or both of the following notices in relation to the disposal in accordance with sub-paragraph (6)-
	(a) notice of their objection to the proposed use of the publicly funded proceeds of disposal under sub-paragraph (6)(b); (b) notice of their claim to the whole or a part of the publicly funded proceeds of disposal under sub-paragraph (6)(c), the governing body may not use the publicly funded proceeds of disposal until the relevant requirements in relation to each notice so given are met.
	(12) The "relevant requirements" in relation to a notice given under sub-paragraph (6)(b) are met if-
	(a) the relevant capital expenditure upon which the publicly funded proceeds of disposal are to be used has been determined in accordance with paragraph A3(2), or (b) the authority have withdrawn notice of their objection to the proposed use of the publicly funded proceeds of disposal in accordance with sub-paragraph (8).
	(13) The "relevant requirements" in relation to a notice given under sub-paragraph (6)(c) are met if-
	(a) the "appropriate amount" has been determined in accordance with paragraph A3(3), or (b) the authority have withdrawn notice of their claim in accordance with sub-paragraph (8)."
	Page 151, line 20, after second "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 151, line 22, leave out "the proceeds of disposal" and insert "those proceeds"
	Page 151, line 33, after second "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 151, line 34, leave out "the proceeds of disposal" and insert "those proceeds"
	Page 151, line 49, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 152 and insert-
	"A4 (1) This paragraph applies where the disposal is made.
	(1A) The governing body must notify the authority that the disposal has been made and of the amount of the proceeds of disposal.
	(1B) Where-
	(a) the authority gave notice of their claim to the whole or a part of the publicly funded proceeds of disposal in accordance with paragraph A2(6)(c), and (b) the "appropriate amount" has been determined in accordance with paragraph A3(3) to be an amount greater than zero, the governing body must pay the "appropriate amount" to the authority."
	Page 152, line 6, after "remaining" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 152, line 8, after "remaining" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 152, line 14, at end insert "publicly funded"
	Page 152, line 24, after "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 152, leave out line 26 and insert-
	"( ) The "remaining publicly funded proceeds of disposal" means the amount of the publicly funded"
	Page 152, line 29, leave out from "A3(3)," to end of line 31.
	Page 152, line 32, after "Sub-paragraphs" insert "(1B),"
	Page 152, line 32, leave out from "paragraph" to end ofline 33 and insert "A2(11) (restriction on use of publicly funded proceeds of disposal where notices given under paragraph A2(6)(b) or (c))."
	Page 152, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 154.
	Page 154, line 28, at end insert-
	"A6A(1) This paragraph applies where-
	(a) the authority gave notice of their objection to the disposal in accordance with paragraph A2(6)(a), and (b) the adjudicator has determined that he does not approve the disposal.
	(2) The governing body may apply to the adjudicator for an order to be made by him requiring the land or any part of the land to be transferred to such local authority as he may specify subject to the payment by that authority of such sum by way of consideration (if any) as he determines to be appropriate.
	(3) Before making an application under sub-paragraph (2), the governing body must give the local education authority notice of their intention to make the application."
	Page 156, line 24, leave out "A13" and insert "A13A"
	Page 156, line 24, at end insert "and paragraph A22"
	Page 156, line 32, after "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 156, line 33, leave out "those proceeds" and insert "the proceeds of disposal"
	Page 156, line 33, at end insert-
	"( ) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraphs A10 and A11, the "publicly funded proceeds of disposal" means the proceeds of disposal which are attributable to the land having been acquired or enhanced in value, or both, as the case may be, as mentioned in the relevant paragraph or paragraphs of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph A8."
	Page 156, line 38, at end insert "publicly funded"
	Page 156, line 40, after second "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 157, line 4, leave out "(6)" and insert "(6)(a)"
	Page 157, line 6, leave out from "where" to second "are" in line 8 and insert "the authority give notice of their objection to the disposal in accordance with sub-paragraph (6)(a), the relevant requirements in relation to such a notice"
	Page 157, line 12, leave out from "disposal" to end of line 16 and insert "on or after the expiry of the requisite period until the relevant requirements in relation to such a notice are met."
	Page 157, line 16, at end insert-
	"( ) The "relevant requirements" in relation to a notice given under sub-paragraph (6)(a) are met if-
	(a) the adjudicator has approved the disposal on a reference made under paragraph A10(1), or (b) the authority have withdrawn notice of their objection to the disposal in accordance with sub-paragraph (8)."
	Page 157, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 32 and insert-
	"(11) If the authority give either or both of the following notices in relation to the disposal in accordance with sub-paragraph (6)-
	(a) notice of their objection to the proposed use of the publicly funded proceeds of disposal under sub-paragraph (6)(b); (b) notice of their claim to the whole or a part of the publicly funded proceeds of disposal under sub-paragraph (6)(c), the foundation body may not use the publicly funded proceeds of disposal until the relevant requirements in relation to each notice so given are met.
	(12) The "relevant requirements" in relation to a notice given under sub-paragraph (6)(b) are met if-
	(a) the relevant capital expenditure upon which the publicly funded proceeds of disposal are to be used has been determined in accordance with paragraph A10(2), or (b) the authority have withdrawn notice of their objection to the proposed use of the publicly funded proceeds of disposal in accordance with sub-paragraph (8).
	(13) The "relevant requirements" in relation to a notice given under sub-paragraph (6)(c) are met if-
	(a) the "appropriate amount" has been determined in accordance with paragraph A10(3), or (b) the authority have withdrawn notice of their claim in accordance with sub-paragraph (8)."
	Page 157, line 39, after "of the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 157, line 41, leave out "the proceeds of disposal" and insert "those proceeds"
	Page 158, line 2, after second "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 158, line 3, leave out "the proceeds of disposal" and insert "those proceeds"
	Page 158, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 and insert-
	"A11 (1) This paragraph applies where the disposal is made.
	(1A) The foundation body must notify the authority that the disposal has been made and of the amount of the proceeds of disposal.
	(1B) Where-
	(a) the authority gave notice of their claim to the whole or a part of the publicly funded proceeds of disposal in accordance with paragraph A9(6)(c), and (b) the "appropriate amount" has been determined in accordance with paragraph A10(3) to be an amount greater than zero, the foundation body must pay the "appropriate amount" to the authority."
	Page 158, line 24, after "remaining" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 158, line 26, after "remaining" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 158, line 32, at end insert "publicly funded"
	Page 158, line 42, after "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 158, leave out line 44 and insert-
	"( ) The "remaining publicly funded proceeds of disposal" means the amount of the publicly funded"
	Page 158, line 47, leave out from "A10(3)," to end of line 49.
	Page 159, line 1, after "Sub-paragraphs" insert "(1B),"
	Page 159, line 1, leave out from "paragraph" to end of line 2 and insert "A9(11) (restriction on use of publicly funded proceeds of disposal where notices given under paragraph A9(6)(b) or (c))."
	Page 159, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 47 on page 160.
	Page 160, line 47, at end insert-
	"A13A(1) This paragraph applies where-
	(a) the authority gave notice of their objection to the disposal in accordance with paragraph A9(6)(a), and (b) the adjudicator has determined that he does not approve the disposal.
	(2) The foundation body may apply to the adjudicator for an order to be made by him requiring the land or any part of the land to be transferred to such local authority as he may specify subject to the payment by that authority of such sum by way of consideration (if any) as he determines to be appropriate.
	(3) Before making an application under sub-paragraph (2), the foundation body must give the local education authority notice of its intention to make the application."
	Page 162, line 40, after "by" insert "the trustees from"
	Page 162, line 40, at end insert "which was land acquired by the governing body"
	Page 163, line 34, leave out "A20" and insert "A20A"
	Page 163, line 34, at end insert "and paragraph A22"
	Page 164, line 3, after "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 164, line 4, leave out "those proceeds" and insert "the proceeds of disposal"
	Page 164, line 4, at end insert-
	"( ) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraphs A17 and A18, the "publicly funded proceeds of disposal" means the proceeds of disposal which are attributable to the land having been acquired or enhanced in value, or both, as the case may be, as mentioned in the relevant paragraph or paragraphs of sub-paragraph (1), (2) or (3) of paragraph A15."
	Page 164, line 9, at end insert "publicly funded"
	Page 164, line 11, after second "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 164, line 21, leave out "(8)" and insert "(8)(a)"
	Page 164, line 23, leave out from "where" to second "are" in line 25 and insert "the authority give notice of their objection to the disposal in accordance with sub-paragraph (8)(a), the relevant requirements in relation to such a notice"
	Page 164, line 28, leave out from "disposal" to end of line 32 and insert "on or after the expiry of the requisite period until the relevant requirements in relation to such a notice are met."
	Page 164, line 32, at end insert-
	"( ) The "relevant requirements" in relation to a notice given under sub-paragraph (8)(a) are met if-
	(a) the adjudicator has approved the disposal on a reference made under paragraph A17(1), or (b) the authority have withdrawn notice of their objection to the disposal in accordance with sub-paragraph (10)."
	Page 164, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 48 and insert-
	"(13) If the authority give either or both of the following notices in relation to the disposal in accordance with sub-paragraph (8)-
	(a) notice of their objection to the proposed use of the publicly funded proceeds of disposal under sub-paragraph (8)(b); (b) notice of their claim to the whole or a part of the publicly funded proceeds of disposal under sub-paragraph (8)(c), the trustees may not use the publicly funded proceeds of disposal until the relevant requirements in relation to each notice so given are met.
	(14) The "relevant requirements" in relation to a notice given under sub-paragraph (8)(b) are met if-
	(a) the relevant capital expenditure upon which the publicly funded proceeds of disposal are to be used has been determined in accordance with paragraph A17(2), or (b) the authority have withdrawn notice of their objection to the proposed use of the publicly funded proceeds of disposal in accordance with sub-paragraph (10).
	(14A) The "relevant requirements" in relation to a notice given under sub-paragraph (8)(c) are met if-
	(a) the "appropriate amount" has been determined in accordance with paragraph A17(3), or (b) the authority have withdrawn notice of their claim in accordance with sub-paragraph (10)."
	Page 165, line 10, after "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 165, line 12, leave out from "used"," to end of line 19 and insert-
	"( ) in sub-paragraph (13)- (i) for "proposed use of the publicly funded proceeds of disposal" substitute "proposed purposes for which the land is to be used", and (ii) for "use the publicly funded proceeds of disposal" substitute "use the land for purposes not connected with the provision of education in maintained schools", and ( ) in sub-paragraph (14)- (i) for "relevant capital expenditure upon which the publicly funded proceeds of disposal are to be used has" substitute "purposes for which the land is to be used have", and (ii) for "proposed use of the publicly funded proceeds of disposal" substitute "proposed purposes for which the land is to be used"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 130A to 130H:
	Page 165, line 25, after second "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 165, line 27, leave out "the proceeds of disposal" and insert "those proceeds"
	Page 165, line 36, after "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 165, line 37, leave out "the proceeds of disposal" and insert "those proceeds"
	Page 166, line 5, after "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 166, line 7, leave out "the proceeds of disposal" and insert "those proceeds"
	Page 166, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert-
	"A18 (1) This paragraph applies where the disposal is made.
	(1A) The trustees must notify the authority that the disposal has been made and of the amount of the proceeds of disposal.
	(1B) Where-
	(a) the authority gave notice of their claim to the whole or a part of the publicly funded proceeds of disposal in accordance with paragraph A16(8)(c), and (b) the "appropriate amount" has been determined in accordance with paragraph A17(3) to be an amount greater than zero, the trustees or their successors must pay the "appropriate amount" to the authority."
	Page 166, line 16, at end insert "publicly funded"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 131A to 131U:
	Page 166, line 19, after "remaining" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 166, line 25, at end insert "publicly funded"
	Page 166, line 35, after "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 166, leave out line 37 and insert-
	"( ) The "remaining publicly funded proceeds of disposal" means the amount of the publicly funded"
	Page 166, line 40, leave out from "A17(3)," to end of line 42.
	Page 166, line 43, after "Sub-paragraphs" insert "(1B),"
	Page 166, line 43, leave out from "paragraph" to end ofline 44 and insert "A16(13) (restriction on use of publicly funded proceeds of disposal where notices given under paragraph A16(8)(b) or (c))."
	Page 167, line 1, leave out "(1)" and insert "(1A)"
	Page 167, line 3, after ""remaining" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 167, line 10, after "the" insert "publicly funded"
	Page 167, line 15, at end insert "publicly funded"
	Page 167, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 169.
	Page 169, line 6, at end insert-
	"A20A(1) This paragraph applies where-
	(a) the authority gave notice of their objection to the disposal in accordance with paragraph A16(8)(a), and (b) the adjudicator has determined that he does not approve the disposal.
	(2) The trustees may apply to the adjudicator for an order to be made by him requiring the land or any part of the land to be transferred to such local authority as he may specify subject to the payment by that authority of such sum by way of consideration (if any) as he determines to be appropriate.
	(3) Before making an application under sub-paragraph (2), the trustees must give the local education authority notice of their intention to make the application."
	Page 169, line 25, after "reference" insert "or application"
	Page 169, line 26, leave out "A20" and insert "A20A"
	Page 169, line 27, after "determining" insert "the publicly funded proceeds of disposal or"
	Page 169, line 27, leave out from "amount"" to "in" in line 28.
	Page 169, line 28, leave out "in accordance with" and insert "for the purposes of"
	Page 169, line 30, leave out "on a reference made under" and insert "for the purposes of"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 132A to 132D:
	Page 169, line 33, at end insert-
	"(3) In addition to having regard to guidance as required under sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (2), a local education authority, a governing body, a foundation body, trustees and the adjudicator, must also have regard, in particular, to the factors mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) in determining any of the following for the purposes of any of paragraphs A2 to A20A-
	(a) the publicly funded proceeds of disposal; (b) the "appropriate amount"; (c) the amount of the consideration (if any) to be paid under paragraph A6A, A13A or A20A.
	(4) The factors referred to in sub-paragraph (3) are-
	(a) in the case of any disposal, the value of the land as at the date of the determination, (b) in the case of any disposal, any enhancement in value of the land attributable to expenditure on the land by the local education authority or a relevant person, (c) in the case of any disposal, any expenditure on the land by a relevant person, (d) in the case of any disposal, any relevant payments made by a relevant person to the local education authority or the Secretary of State, (e) in the case of any disposal, to the extent that they do not fall within paragraph (c) or (d), any payments in respect of the acquisition of the land, and (f) in the case of a disposal falling within paragraph A1(1)(i), paragraph A8(1)(h) or paragraph A15(1)(h) or (k), (2)(a)(iii) or (b), or (3)(a)(ii), the extent to which the proceeds of disposal mentioned in the provision in question were publicly funded proceeds of disposal as defined for the purposes of paragraph A2, A9 or A16, as the case may be.
	(5) A "relevant person" means-
	(a) in the case of a disposal to which paragraph A2 or A16 applies, the governing body or the trustees of the school in question, and (b) in the case of a disposal to which paragraph A9 applies, the foundation body in question.
	(6) A "relevant payment" means-
	(a) in the case of any disposal, a payment in respect of the current school site or sites to which the land relates, (b) in the case of any disposal, a payment under any of the following provisions- paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 3; paragraph 16(5) of Schedule 6 (including that provision as applied by any enactment); section 60(4) of the Education Act 1996; paragraph 28(5) of Schedule 2 to the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (including that provision as applied by any enactment), and. (c) in the case of a disposal of land falling within any of the following provisions- paragraph A1(1)(f) or (g); paragraph A8(1)(e) or (f); paragraph A15(1)(g), (i) or (j),.
	a payment in respect of the grant mentioned in the provision in question.
	(7) The reference in sub-paragraph (5)(a) to the governing body or the trustees of the school in question includes-
	(a) where the school was established in pursuance of proposals published under section 28(2) or 28A(2), the persons who published the proposals, (b) where the school was established in pursuance of proposals published under section 70 of the Education Act 2002 or section 66 of the Education Act 2005 which were made by persons other than a local education authority, the persons by whom the proposals were made, and (c) where the school was established in pursuance of proposals published under any of sections 7, 10 and 11 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, any persons, other than a local education authority, by whom the proposals were treated for the purposes of Schedule 2 to that Act as having been made.
	(8) The reference in sub-paragraph (5)(b) to the foundation body in question includes-
	(a) where the school or any of the schools to which the land in question relates was established in pursuance of proposals published under section 28(2) or 28A(2), the persons who published the proposals, (b) where the school or any of the schools to which the land in question relates was established in pursuance of proposals published under section 70 of the Education Act 2002 or section 66 of the Education Act 2005 which were made by persons other than a local education authority, the persons by whom the proposals were made, and (c) where the school or any of the schools to which the land in question relates was established in pursuance of proposals published under any of sections 7, 10 and 11 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, any persons, other than a local education authority, by whom the proposals were treated for the purposes of Schedule 2 to that Act as having been made."
	Page 169, line 47, at end insert-
	"( ) In determining whether to make a reference to the adjudicator under sub-paragraph (1)(a), a relevant person must have regard, in particular, to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State." .
	Page 169, line 47, at end insert-
	"(3) An order made by the adjudicator on an application under paragraph A6A, A13A or A20A may be varied or revoked by a further order made by him if-
	(a) an application for its variation or revocation is made to him by an appropriate person in relation to the order, and (b) before making the further order, the adjudicator consults such persons as he considers appropriate.
	(4) An "appropriate person" in relation to an order made under paragraph A6A, A13A or A20A means-
	(a) the governing body, the foundation body or the trustees, as the case may be, who applied for the order, (b) the local education authority, or (c) if different from that authority, the local authority to whom land is required to be transferred under the order.
	(5) In determining whether to make an application to the adjudicator under sub-paragraph (3)(a), an appropriate person must have regard, in particular, to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State."
	Page 169, line 47, at end insert-
	"( ) Paragraph A22 applies in relation to the further determination by the adjudicator, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3), of any matter for the purposes of any of paragraphs A2 to A20A as it applies in relation to the original determination of the matter."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 132E not moved.]

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 132F and 132G:
	Page 173, line 5, at end insert-
	"( ) In determining whether to make an application to the adjudicator under sub-paragraph (13)(a), a relevant person must have regard, in particular, to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.
	( ) Sub-paragraph (11) applies in relation to the making of a further order by virtue of sub-paragraph (13) as it applies in relation to the making of the original transfer order."
	Page 178, line 6, at end insert-
	"( ) In sub-paragraph (1A)(b) for "falling withinsection 21(1)(a)" substitute "established otherwise than under this Act"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 133 to 136:
	Page 182, line 31, leave out "falling within sub-paragraph (2)" and insert "to which section 23A (requirements as to foundations) applies"
	Page 182, leave out lines 33 to 40.
	Page 183, line 32, leave out "and"
	Page 183, line 34, at end insert "and for the purpose of sub-paragraph (1) section 23A is to be taken to apply to the proposed school if it would apply to the school when it is established"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 136A to 136E:
	Page 183, line 40, leave out ""A26,"" and insert ""A6A, A13A, A20A, A26,""
	Page 184, line 14, at end insert-
	"( ) In sub-paragraph (4) for the words from ", either by agreement" to the end substitute "-
	(a) by agreement between the authority and the relevant body, or (b) by the adjudicator where- (i) the authority or the relevant body refer the matter to him for determination, and (ii) by the time of his determination, the matter has not been determined by agreement between the authority and the relevant body.""
	Page 184, line 14, at end insert-
	"( ) After sub-paragraph (4) insert-
	"(4A) In determining whether to make a reference to the adjudicator under sub-paragraph (4)(b), the authority or, as the case may be, the relevant body, must have regard, in particular, to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.
	(4B) Before making a reference to the adjudicator under sub-paragraph (4)(b), the authority or, as the case may be, the relevant body, must give the other notice of their intention to make the reference.""
	Page 184, line 14, at end insert-
	"( ) In sub-paragraph (5)-
	(a) for "Secretary of State" substitute "adjudicator", and (b) after "particular" insert "to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State and"."
	Page 184, line 14, at end insert-
	"( ) After sub-paragraph (5) insert-
	"(5A) A determination made by the adjudicator on a reference made to him under sub-paragraph (4)(b) may be varied or revoked by a further determination made by him if-
	(a) the matter is referred to him by the local education authority or the relevant body, and (b) before making the further determination, the adjudicator consults such persons as he considers appropriate.
	(5B) In determining whether to make a reference to the adjudicator under sub-paragraph (5A)(a), the local education authority or the relevant body must have regard, in particular, to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.
	(5C) Sub-paragraph (5) applies in relation to the further determination of any matter by the adjudicator, by virtue of sub-paragraph (5A), as it applies in relation to the original determination of the matter.""
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 137A:
	Page 186, line 7, leave out from "2," to end of line 10 and insert "in sub-paragraph (10), after "paragraphs" insert "A1 to A18 or"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 138:
	Before Clause 36, insert the following new clause-
	"GOVERNING BODIES: DETERMINATION OF POLICY WITH RESPECT TO YOUNG CARERS
	(1) The governing body of a maintained school must ensure that policies designed to ensure the identification of young carers and to promote their welfare are pursued at the school.
	(2) A person is a young carer for the purposes of this section if-
	(a) he assumes a level of responsibility for another person which would normally be assumed by an adult, (b) he is a registered pupil at the school."

Baroness Buscombe: This is a probing amendment. We would like to see the Government further considering young carers' welfare. Like looked after children, children who take on a caring role in the family are pupils who are at particular risk of not receiving sufficient support from the education system. About 3 million children in the UK are affected by disability in their families and 175,000 of them become young carers. It is estimated that the majority of young carers remain unidentified. We must ensure that these children are identified and offered the best support so that they can achieve their potential.
	Amendment No. 142—proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—which attempts to address the issue, is unsatisfactory. It is far too prescriptive and would unnecessarily restrict the freedom and autonomy of our schools. Our amendment will enable each school to develop a policy suited to its circumstances, ensuring that young carers are identified and their welfare promoted. It is drafted along the same lines as the discipline provisions. There is no substantive relation, but it seemed appropriate that a governing body would take a special interest in the welfare of young carers, and develop a policy suited to their particular school. That can be achieved without hindering the school's powers and freedoms to run their own affairs, and would offer each school the opportunity to safeguard the welfare of their own pupils.
	I look forward to the Minister's response on this important matter. I am sure that many schools already take an interest in young carers, but it is important to emphasise that the amendment is not intended to create an index of young carers for all to see. I am well aware that many young carers may not wish to be identified in front of their classmates, or share their home situation. Their privacy should be respected. That message is terribly important. The aim of the amendment is to improve the support given to young carers, not to expose their personal lives to unwanted scrutiny. I beg to move.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: I shall speak to Amendment No. 142. I am not sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and I are all that far apart. I welcome the desire to help and support children in care in the Bill. I tabled Amendment No. 142 because young carers also deserve a better deal.
	I have recently met many young carers and listened to their problems. I am grateful to the Princess Royal Trust for Carers and other support groups for supplying me with further information. A huge and recurring issue is that of schools not knowing that they have young carers, and having no policy or person in charge to cope with their needs. There is no need to identify them in front of their classmates, but people need to know that there is a problem, just like any other welfare problem.
	Some young carers are caring for a parent with a physical or mental disability, or for a sibling. In both cases, they may find themselves late for school, unable to do homework on time or, sadly, missing school. I shall briefly illustrate my points. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, there are around 175,000 carers in the UK. Of these, 13,000 care for people for more than 50 hours a week. That is surely enough young people to mean that every local authority should have a young carer strategy as part of their children and young people's plan. Young people's health is often badly affected by caring through the night, having to lift a heavy adult and feeling isolated. These young people are often going through adolescence, and have the same emotional needs as others. Many suffer the additional trauma of bereavement, family break-up, loss of income or housing, and seeing the effects of illness or substance misuse in the family.
	I am focusing on educational needs, but these needs go beyond education; a good reason for children's services which link together to support the young person. Education is a big concern when we are looking at people missing school altogether. One child said:
	"I missed a lot of school because he wasn't well. I didn't like leaving him in case he fell over and he couldn't reach a phone or pull the cords ... I went to school twice a week, and that was it".
	The DfES guidance and advice for schools and local authorities states:
	"Young carers should not be expected to carry inappropriate levels of caring which have an adverse impact on their development and life chances. However, there are children and young people who undertake caring roles ... there may be up to 30 young carers in a secondary school".
	The advice goes on to say that:
	"Schools should consider designating a member of staff to have responsibility for young carers. They can also contribute to schemes that support them, working with local authorities and voluntary agencies".
	This is not simply a problem for schools, but across many services.
	Only some schools identify and support young carers. There are stories of real success; for example, allowing young carers access to telephones in school so that they can contact their home in case of emergency, as well as real care on homework issues and links to other services.
	If we are, insistent that Every Child Matters principles go right through the Bill—I think that we are—the rights of young carers should also be supported. Every school should have a lead professional who co-ordinates young carers' support. Links between school and family are absolutely vital. Local authorities should provide free transport for young carers, and schools should work with young carers' services as part of the extended schools and healthy schools programmes. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to my amendment. On behalf of young carers, I do not think it is too much to ask.

Baroness Walmsley: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 139A, 139B, 139C, 140A and 140B in this group. First, I shall mention Amendment No. 139 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, who is unable to be with us. This is another place in the Bill where we believe the well being of the child should be added. The noble Baroness has placed it right up there with the duties of the governing bodies, where it should be—at the basis of the activity of the school alongside the achievement of educational potential.
	I have added my name to Amendment No. 142 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, to which she has just spoken so effectively. The reason why I prefer her amendment to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is that it seeks to replicate the situation that applies to looked-after children, in that the school should have a dedicated teacher who is responsible for supporting that other particular group of very needy children who need particular support from the school. The fact that she has paralleled that situation which already exists for looked-after children with this other group of young carers who have different needs, but none the less very important needs, is what makes her amendment particularly attractive to me.
	I shall not speak to Amendment No. 184B, as we have changed it and put it in a different place in the Bill. It belongs in the discipline section and the bullying section. We shall come to it later in our debates.
	Amendment No. 139A adds academies, city technology colleges, and city colleges for the technology of the arts to the list of schools that must have regard to the relevant children and young people's plan. The Minister is always telling us that those schools, although they are independent, are actually community schools. If that is so, there is no case for them to be excluded from the duty to have regard to the children and young people's plan for the area. To have no regard to that plan would be a recipe for chaos and discrimination in the area and the children who would suffer would, as usual, be the most vulnerable.
	Amendments Nos. 139B and 140B have been suggested to us by the LGA. They would ensure that the Bill strengthens the contribution of schools to the improvement of all of the five well-being outcomes for children, as set out in the Children Act 2004, and not just educational attainment. Local authorities have, of course, embraced the provision of that Act. As a key plank of the Children Act 2004, local authorities are required, in conjunction with their local partners, and in consultation—this is most important—with children and young people themselves, to produce the children and young people's plan. Government guidance describes the document as,
	"a single strategic overarching plan for all local services for children and young people".
	Both in the SI and in government guidance there is a clear onus on local authorities to ensure that the schools are consulted and have full input into the process. That onus is only in one direction at present. Schools are not currently required to act within the provisions of the plan once agreed. Given the obvious importance of schools in delivering the educational fulfilment and wider elements of the well-being of children, and given that the Government have described the children and young people's plan as an overarching plan for all services affecting children and young people, we believe that the onus on governing bodies to comply with local partners' plans must be strengthened to ensure coherent and effective local delivery of the well-being of children and young people.
	Amendment No. 139C is from the NSPCC, which welcomes the new duty that schools must have regard to any relevant children and young people's plan, but would like to see an amendment to this clause which makes it clear that the school, parents of registered pupils and the registered pupils themselves must be involved in the development of the plan from the outset. That would ensure that the plan is both relevant and applicable to all schools, parents and children in the local authority. Of course, noble Lords will realise that the inclusion of pupils in the development of the children and young people's plan is in line with Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
	The NSPCC also suggested AmendmentNo. 140A. It believes that the duty to improve the well-being of children should be included alongside the general duties of a governing body of a maintained school to direct the conduct of a school. That would complement the duties in the Children Act 2004 placed on local authorities and other institutions and bodies with responsibilities for children's welfare. In that way, it is very similar to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth.

Baroness Pitkeathley: I will speak to Amendment No. 142 to which I added my name. My main aim as far as this Bill is concerned is that there should be some mention of young carers in the Bill. Twenty years ago, when Carers UK started campaigning for the rights of young carers, nobody believed that there was such a thing as a young carer. It was simply not in our consciousness. We must acknowledge what huge progress we have made, perhaps particularly since this Government have been in power, in recognising the needs of young carers. A great deal of progress has been made in providing services appropriate to the needs of young carers.
	However, time and again, when you meet young carers—as I do and as the noble Baroness,Lady Massey, has mentioned—they say, "If only we had more recognition in schools. If only our teachers understood what it was that we're doing". That is not to say that they are requiring too much attention, legitimacy or freedom, but that they want, as young carers frequently say, an ordinary life. I hope that we can include a provision in the Bill that will move us further on in the education area towards helping young carers have just that.

The Earl of Listowel: I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathly, just said with all her experience in this area. Two of the amendments emphasise schools' responsibilities in this area and draw on the consultation with young carers that I attended. It was organised by Dr Roger Morgan, the Children's Rights Director at the Commission for Social Care Inspection. It is his duty to ensure that the voices of children affected by public services are heard clearly.
	I have three points. On social services, which the noble Baroness Lady Massey, mentioned, children commented that,
	"social services come in and out of our lives but never stay long enough to help".
	Young carers,
	"did not get much support for themselves from organisations like social services",
	and stressed the need for,
	"having the same social worker for a continuous time".
	We know that, because of the shortage of social workers in many areas, we have a long way to go in securing that steady support. It makes it all the more important that schools can supply that support where it is lacking elsewhere.
	On schools, young people said that,
	"it feels like I've got to explain myself so many times".
	The consultation concluded that,
	"if you have been doing caring tasks for someone at home, sometimes during the night, you are simply tired and can't concentrate at school".
	Young carers need one,
	"person on the staff they could talk to at any time about their caring pressures",
	so the role of designated teacher is very important indeed.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and children said,
	"there is a fine line between helping and intruding".
	That sensitivity is all-important and again schools need to be equipped to deliver it. What struck me most in the meeting was what young people said about their friends. They said:
	"Staff also need to know how being a young carer can make a difference to how you get on with other children or young people. It can make it difficult to make friends, and you can come across as having emotional problems yourself. Friends you do make sometimes don't stick around when things get tough. Practical things like going out with friends and going on sleepovers can be very difficult for a young carer to do, and this does make a difference to how you get on with other people your own age".
	The charity YoungMinds has often expressed the concern that mental health services, when they are dealing with parents, do not identify the children and the need for those children to get support. I welcome the strengthened duty on schools to identify these children and ensure that they get the support and services that they need. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Lucas: I support my noble friend's amendment. These young carers are enormously important to us. Those who are capable of taking on these responsibilities at that age often go on to great things afterwards. I can think of one who became a postman and may go even further yet.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: All the amendments seem to follow the same sort of line, certainly as far as young carers are concerned. Again, having seen and heard some of their views over time, I think that the whole purpose of having some form of teacher support is going to be important.
	The other thing is that fine line between intrusion and helping, and there is room here surely not just for a designated teacher but for a lot more voluntary support, a mentor in the community. In earlier discussion, we were able to identify some degree of bullying that often arose in such situations.
	So there is a lot of need for attention to this very special, very important group who often have a huge role in keeping the family together. On the other side, I would very much support the well-being amendments that have been suggested. It is important that they go in in their more general capacity for the educational side of the work.

Lord Adonis: We absolutely accept the important issues relating to young carers that the noble Baroness has raised, supported by my noble friends, by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Walmsley, and by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Anyone who has looked at this and spoken to young carers and to schools as they seek to provide assistance to them realises the gravity of the issue.
	The estimates of numbers vary widely. The 2001 census recorded a total of almost 150,000 young carers in England and Wales—a substantial increase on the figures collected by ONS in 1996, which suggested between 19,000 and 51,000. Whichever figures we look at, the numbers are very large. There are even suggestions that the figures may be an underestimate, as they do not include young carers whose parents have drug or alcohol problems, which is often a significant issue. It is also striking that some very young children are recorded as providing significant hours of care.
	The issue is how we provide better assistance for young carers without labelling and possibly stigmatising them, which would of course be a concern that we would all share and which we particularly think might apply to a requirement on schools to identify young carers in some formal way. We are happy to look at this further before Report, in particular to see whether my department could provide non-statutory guidance to schools, consulting local authorities and relevant representative organisations to help them in their efforts to engage sensitively with young carers and to promote the fulfilment of their educational potential, with particular reference to proposed new subsection (2)(b) in the noble Baroness's amendment. We will seek to engage noble Lords in further discussions on this before Report.
	With respect to Amendment No. 139A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we recognise that academies should have regard to the children and young people's plan in each locality. We intend this to be taken forward through amendments to the model funding agreement for new academies, and my officials will also enter into negotiations with existing academies following the passage of the Bill to see that this is reflected in their funding agreements too. I hope that we can bring about that result.
	I am told that the objective that the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve through Amendment No. 139C has been met. We entirely share the view that there should be full consultation with children and people in families during the development of children and young people's plans. That need is met by the Children and Young People's Plan (England) Regulations 2005, which make provision to ensure that the views of children, young people, families and their representatives are heard during the development of the CYPP. It may help if I send those regulations to the noble Baroness to see whether that satisfies her in this regard. Obviously, it would be pointless to have a children and young people's plan without consulting children and young people in its preparation and ensuring that they played a full part in that process.
	On the issues covered by Amendments Nos. 138, 139, 139C, 140, 140A, 140B, 142 and 184B, we of course share the objectives entirely. Our concern is not to put in statutory duties where we believe that the purposes can be achieved in less regulatory ways. They can be, because of the centrality of Every Child Matters to what schools now seek to achieve. Should encouragement be necessary to ensure schools' participation, sufficient levers already exist. Ofsted already inspects schools using a framework that requires consideration of the delivery of the five outcomes in Every Child Matters. The framework for schools' self-evaluation fully reflects Every Child Matters, and we recently issued guidance on that, which I would be happy to circulate to the Committee. School improvement partners, which we debated earlier in our consideration of the Bill, will support and challenge schools on their contribution to the five outcomes. School profiles will give parents information about the support that schools provide for pupils' well-being and any extended services that the school offers.
	Looking at how schools already engage with Every Child Matters, we believe that progress on extended schools is one proxy for overall progress and note that 2,500 schools will make the core offer of extended services by September 2006. Over 8,000 schools are now engaged with their local authority and the Training and Development Agency in developing plans to become extended schools. The indications that we have of engagement by schools in this agenda are highly positive, and we do not seek to legislate further at this stage.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for his reassurances and look forward to receiving the regulations that he mentioned. I am pleased that the aim of Amendment No. 139A will be achieved by amendments to the model funding agreement.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his reply and for his encouraging words about Amendment No. 138 and Amendment No. 142, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. As the noble Baroness said, we are not far apart at all. We want to make sure that what we propose can be as discreet and flexible as possible, being careful to ensure that the individual young carer is not in any way stigmatised and is at the same time recognised. It is difficult. The Minister appreciates what we are trying to achieve, but at the same time I appreciate that we have to be careful about how we identify these young people. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said—I wrote it down just as she was saying it—they do not have ordinary life experiences in some ways, and it is difficult for their peer group to appreciate what they are going through, so they must often feel in many ways isolated and traumatised through their experiences. In other ways, of course, they have grown far beyond their years. My noble friend, in supporting my amendment, suggested that in many ways they could do great things in later life through their difficult and challenging experiences in early life.
	I am grateful to the Minister. I am glad that he has agreed to think more about this, and non-statutory guidance is a great start. We all clearly feel that the area is hugely important. We have come a long way. I am pleased with the Minister's response and, for now, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 36 [General duties of governing body of maintained school]:
	[Amendments Nos. 139 to 141 not moved.]
	Clause 36 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 143:
	After Clause 36, insert the following new clause-
	"DUTIES IN RELATION TO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TEACHERS
	(1) This section applies where it is alleged that a teacher or member of staff, including a volunteer, at an education establishment providing education for persons under 18 years of age has-
	(a) behaved in a way that has harmed a child, or may have harmed a child, (b) committed a criminal offence against or related to a child, or (c) behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicates that he is unsuitable to work with children.
	(2) Persons investigating and considering such allegations shall hold in confidence any information that might identify-
	(a) the person who made the allegation, and (b) the person who is the subject of the allegations.
	(3) The governing body of a maintained school shall ensure that policies are in place to ensure that members of staff at the school maintain the confidence of information covered by subsection (2).
	(4) This section ceases to apply where-
	(a) in the case of an alleged criminal offence, where the teacher or member of staff is charged in respect of the offence, or (b) in other cases, when at the completion of investigation and consideration of the allegation it has been determined that the allegation is proved."

Baroness Buscombe: Amendment No. 143 would place a duty on those investigating allegations against teachers to safeguard the identities of those involved. I am grateful that the Minister has organised a meeting with a Member in another place, Mr Jim Knight, to discuss these matters further. The amendment would ensure the confidentiality of information that could identify the alleged offender until the allegation had been proven. It would also place a duty on the governing body of a maintained school to ensure that it had a policy that would impose disciplinary action on any member of staff who disclosed that confidential information.
	As my honourable friend in another place, David Willetts, noted, the amendment is drafted so that it comes within the remit of the Bill. It might have been simpler to provide full anonymity backed up by criminal penalty but, as that is a criminal justice measure, we understood that it would be outside the remit of the Bill.
	We are not wedded to the wording of the amendment. We would be all too willing to alter its wording in order to get this extremely important provision on the face of the Bill. This is an issue that we must get right, and this is our opportunity to do so. We have generated an ever-watchful society, rightly so in many cases, but it is hugely important to ensure that the web of legislation and guidance that affects schools but does not directly deal with them does not place school staff in a vulnerable position. I am reminded of the provisions of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill that impose a duty on schools to keep a watchful eye out for potentially dangerous characters.
	Teachers now teach in a culture where discipline is by necessity on the statute book. The teachers now need legal assent to discipline children. The same goes for all other staff in schools, especially support staff and those assisting in the care of children. The inclusion of that in the Bill is an implicit acknowledgement that teachers come under ever more unreasonable accusation and that they need protection from that. But the legalisation of discipline measures will not protect teachers from the socially and professionally debilitating effects of wrongful accusation.
	What is more, the culture of accusation and blame is a major deterrent to our teaching system. We face an exodus of male teachers from the system, while the statistics of male teachers accused of abuse—70 per cent of all allegations are made against male teachers—make a worrying correspondence. The number of allegations made against teachers has doubled in the past five years. Whereas, in 2001, 220 teachers had previous allegations in conjunction with new allegations, that figure has risen to 440 today. Of those with allegations made against them in 2005, under 4 per cent resulted in conviction. I will not deny that it is notoriously hard to obtain a conviction for abuse, but the figures for allegations investigated are illuminating. Seventy per cent of allegations were not taken forward to criminal investigation. All figures used here come from the DfES audit of allegations against teachers and other staff in the education service.
	I know that other noble Lords will have known or heard of individuals whose careers have been ruined humiliatingly in public as a result of unfounded or mistaken accusation. Since addressing this issue at Second Reading, I have discovered that the NASUWT logs show that, between 1995 and 2002, there were only 86 convictions from the 2,016 cases investigated.
	We accept that the measures to allow teachers to work while allegations of abuse are investigated, introduced in 2005 by the then Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, were a step in the right direction, as was the pledge in the DfES five-year plan of 2004 to defend teachers from false allegations and to ensure that teachers are not subjected to damaging delays to clear their name. But almost two years on from that original pledge, nothing has happened that seeks to redress the situation. We supported the Government's guidance on safeguarding children in education and dealing with allegations of abuse against teachers and other staff, so I look forward to meeting the Minister in this place and in another place next Tuesday to discuss what may be achieved on the matter if we have an unsatisfactory outcome tonight. For now, we hope that the Government can put their money where their mouth is and commit to providing modern safeguards for teachers working in a very modern culture. I beg to move.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for moving this amendment on an extremely difficult and not very popular subject. I declare an interest as one of those involved in setting up the body known as FACT—Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers—with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in this place and Claire Curtis-Thomas in another place.
	There is no doubt that it has become something of an industry for some people to make allegations of a kind that have no substance against parents and teachers. We came across a number of examples over the past couple of years of people who had reasons, not any justified claim, that led them to make allegations against teachers that were simply false—in some cases because they believed that they had been wrongly graded, in other cases because they believed that their references had gone against them, and matters of that kind.
	All this was made worse in the instances that I know most about, which related to the investigations conducted by the North Wales Police and the Merseyside Police into cases involving child carers and teachers, by a method known as trawling, whereby all those involved in a particular school or childcare home were approached and asked whether they wished to make any allegations. That, to say the least, was unfortunate, because in some cases it encouraged those who had no particular allegations to make to give evidence against teachers and carers, possibly with a cohort of their fellows from the same class.
	This is an extraordinarily difficult issue. Justified claims of harassment, misbehaviour and so on against teachers are among the most sensitive and difficult cases that Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills or, for that matter, the Home Office ever have to deal with. It is an extraordinarily difficult balance to strike. Wherever one strikes it, one is likely to create a huge industry and a huge loss of reputation. Nevertheless, the crucial thing—and I believe that the noble Baroness has got it right—is to protect the teacher against whom allegations are made until there has been a proper opportunity to investigate. That protection has been breached in the past where such allegations and rumours have been spread about, which has led, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, to people losing their entire careers as schoolmasters or schoolmistresses, and in some cases to their families being wrecked by the community picking up false allegations against the person concerned.
	So, speaking simply from the background of what knowledge I have of this, which is obviously limited but which shows the acute agony of these kinds of cases, I would certainly commend the effort by the noble Baroness to try to limit the damage caused. I commend the amendment, which may contain purely technical difficulties, but which seems to me to try to address a very difficult and not particularly popular issue.

Baroness Walmsley: We on these Benches have considerable sympathy with the amendment, as my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby has just said. I can think of little worse for somebody who is so committed to children that they take up a profession looking after them—teaching and caring for them in some capacity—than to be falsely accused of malpractice or abusing them in some way. That must be agonising. However, the meeting with the Minister is timed for next Tuesday. We will attend this cross-party meeting with him alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and we will reserve our judgment on whether the amendment is necessary pending what we hear from him. The Minister may well propose something to deal with this very important issue, but, if not, I am sure that we will come back to it on Report.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on the amendment, and very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said in support of it. It is very worrying that the number of cases has doubled and that the number of allegations seems to be growing. Clearly, certain steps have been taken that have helped. It is important to try to reduce the waiting time between when an offence allegedly occurs and when the case is heard. But I have also attended the All-Party Group for Abuse Investigations—or APGAI, as we call it—for some time, perhaps almost to counter my view that a lot of offences are, and have been, committed against children. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has played an extremely useful role in nailing these allegations so far as is humanly possible. I very much support what has been said.

Lord Adonis: We regard this as a serious issue and we look forward to further discussions, which my honourable friend will lead next week, on this difficult issue. Our concern is to ensure that allegations are investigated and dealt with speedily and confidentially. These are the two prime requirements that teachers and carers can legitimately expect from a system when their whole livelihood and future are at stake in the consideration of allegations.
	We have sought to improve guidance and materials to schools on how to deal with cases. Last November, we issued new guidance on this issue to schools and to further education institutions in England. This April, the revised version of Working Together to Safeguard Children provided overarching guidance on allegations against anyone working with children in any setting. Our guidance states that every effort should be made to maintain confidentiality while an allegation is being investigated, unless and until a person is charged with an offence. It also seeks to promote expeditious investigations. The aim is for at least 80 per cent of cases to be resolved in less than one month—this would be an increase on our latest figures, for 2003-04, which show that 55 per cent of allegations were resolved in less than one month—and for all but the most complicated cases and cases that must go to court to be dealt with in less than three months. At present, the latest figures, for 2003-04, show that 22 per cent of cases took up to three months to complete and that 10 per cent of cases took up to a year, which we regard as an excessively long time.
	We have also put in place a network of 15 allegation management advisers, who are based in government offices in England and who work with local safeguarding children boards to ensure that effective arrangements are in place for dealing with allegations of abuse against everyone who works with children—that is, not only teachers but other staff and volunteers in schools and further education institutions. Part of the work of the advisers will be to help organisations to prevent allegations from arising in the first place, particularly in the circumstances mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, through safe recruitment processes and advice on staff behaviour when working with children.
	We are keen to explore next week the question of whether we can go further, but I shall not disguise the fact that we have encountered difficulties on further statutory protection, not least in the read-across to other public servants and others who quite legitimately expect similar protection. We are wrestling with these issues, and I hope that we will have more information to make available to noble Lords in the meeting next week so that we can at least have a stronger shared understanding of how to proceed satisfactorily on this issue.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his reply. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams, Lady Walmsley and Lady Howe, and others who have supported the amendment. I do not know whether other noble Lords would agree, but I must say straight away that, although I hear what the Minister is saying about guidance and arrangements, sadly I do not believe that those arrangements would and could be effective in today's culture. I am afraid that we have gone too far down the road of blame and accusation. Human nature is now such that, sadly, we need a stronger deterrent to deflect this growth in the culture of accusation and blame.
	I speak as a lawyer. I am always loath to legislate in these areas unless absolutely necessary, but we have to think about the numbers. The numbers speak for themselves. Teachers, particularly male teachers, are genuinely being put off the profession by this culture of blame. That is hugely unfortunate. I never thought that I would find myself saying this—maybe it is because of the late hour—but perhaps it is something to do with the media. Whatever is going on out there, people are finding themselves deterred from doing a hugely important job as a teacher because of this culture.
	I urge the Minister to ensure that, when we meet next Tuesday with his colleague from another place, their thoughts and proposals will extend much further than guidance and arrangements. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 37 [General restriction on selection by ability]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 143A:
	Page 27, line 7, at end insert "or Academy, city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 143B, 143C, 145, 145A and 166A. This is part of a large portfolio of amendments that cover selection procedures of one sort or another in relation to admissions. Amendments Nos. 143A, 143B, 143C and 145 relate to Clauses 37 and 38. Clause 37 deals with selection by ability and Clause 38 with the code of admissions. On selection by ability, we on these Benches support the government policy of restricting selection by ability. The aim of the amendments is to strengthen the provisions of Clause 37 in this respect.
	Amendment No. 143A adds to the schools that come within the bounds of these restrictions academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts, which at present fall outside the restrictions suggested by Clause 37. The Government will tell us that academies and city technology colleges are required by their funding agreements to select broadly from across the local community. We accept that this may be the case—it is written into their funding agreements—but we would argue that if this is so and that means that they will not select by ability, then why can that not be in the Bill? Why can they not be added to the maintained schools in the Bill? Why should they always fall outside the general provisions that apply to other schools?
	Amendment No. 143B adds no selection by aptitude to no selection by ability. This issue takes us back to the old arguments about the difference between aptitude and ability. In general, our Benches are sceptical about selection by aptitude, with perhaps two exceptions: sport and music. Otherwise we can see little case for any element of selection by aptitude where secondary schools have various specialisms. How many of these specialist schools select by aptitude? How many have needed to have these provisions? Is it a necessary provision for them to retain in the Bill?
	Amendment No. 143C takes us forward toClause 49 and the issue of pupil banding. In effect, it reinforces Amendment No. 143B—on selection by aptitude—by suggesting that selection should be permitted only for the purposes of pupil banding. At this stage, I ask the Minister a question that might be better asked when we reach Clause 49: how feasible is it to apply banding systems to just one school? Surely, if banding is to be applied, it has to run across all the schools within a community served by those schools. Does banding applied to a single school make any sense at all?
	Amendment No. 145 relates to an issue that we on these Benches feel rather strongly about. If we are to try to get to a needs-blind application system for places at popular secondary schools, just as with examinations, applications should be anonymous, judged on their own merits, the names being attached only after the decisions have been made. That was one of the suggestions put forward by the Select Committee when it considered the White Paper that preceded the Bill. We would have liked to have seen the Select Committee's suggestion incorporated in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to achieve precisely that.
	I turn to Amendment No. 145A, which relates to Clause 38 and the code of practice for admissions. The main purpose of this amendment is very similar to that of Amendment No. 146; namely, that the code of practice for admissions should be subject to positive resolution by both Houses of Parliament. In its briefing for the Second Reading debate, the Association of School and College Leaders argued that if the code is to become mandatory, it is reasonable to require it to pass through proper parliamentary scrutiny. We are very sympathetic to that point and have therefore tabled this amendment. The difference between our amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is that under the procedures that we propose, if the code is not approved, it is open to the Secretary of State to amend and re-table it before both Houses; whereas our reading of the Conservative amendment is that once the code has been rejected, the Secretary of State can never lay a further proposed code.
	Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 166A, yet another amendment that seeks to extend the application of the admissions code not just to maintained schools, which are defined in the Bill as community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and foundation schools—and, in future, trust schools—but also to academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for technology for the arts. In this case, it is a question of banning interviews. In our view, if interviews are regarded as bad practice for one kind of school, the code should be applied equally to all other schools funded from the public purse, whether so-called independent state schools or not. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 144, regarding the use of home school agreements and admissions, and to AmendmentNo. 146. I also give notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 38, regarding the admissions code, stand part of the Bill. I will also speak to Amendment No. 169, regarding interviews allowed for children over compulsory school age and Amendments Nos. 176 to 178, regarding banding.
	Amendment No. 144 introduces home school contracts as part of the admissions code. It offers an incentive and a positive relationship between the family and the school from the outset of a child's education. We agree with the Government's sentiments outlined in the White Paper regarding the reinforcement of parental responsibility for discipline. At Second Reading, I voiced my concerns about parenting orders. They are reactive measures to poor discipline, offering little more than enforcement, and they fail to create overall results.
	The child impact statement issued by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children points out:
	"The extension of parenting orders raises questions about due process in terms of resorting to enforcement measures where no offence has been committed".
	Ultimately, this measure is counterproductive and creates a barrier between parent and school.
	A constructive approach is required. By introducing a contract at the start of a child's education, schools and parents will work in a constructive partnership by actively practising an ethos of discipline. Agreeing to an informal contract between school and home, both teachers and parents send a message to children that behaviour in the home and at school are considered to be of the same or similar importance, with the same or similar acceptable standards expected. This amendment is not intended to be a mechanism to enable teachers to tell parents how to parent and it will not enable parents to tell teachers how to use discipline. It is a simple agreement between parents and schools intended to ensure that they both have an effective tool to help them to tackle serious problems of truancy and attendance, and discipline in the classroom.
	I turn to Amendment No. 146 and the Question whether Clause 38 should stand part of the Bill. These concern the admissions code. Amendment No. 146 would ensure that the code for school admissions would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it could come into force. That reflects the change in the nature of the new code for school admissions compared to its predecessor, the code of practice for school admissions. The code of practice is made under Section 94 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which Clause 38 amends. It required bodies and persons exercising functions under that chapter of the 1998 Act only,
	"to have regard to any relevant provisions of the code".
	The new code is far more prescriptive. As envisaged under Clause 38, the code for school admissions will,
	"impose requirements, and may include guidelines setting out aims, objectives and other matters",
	rather than the less constricting Clause 84(2) of the old arrangement whereby:
	"The code may include guidelines setting out aims, objectives and other matters in relation to the discharge of their functions under this Chapter by local education authorities and such governing bodies".
	Bodies and persons exercising functions under the relevant chapter of the 1998 Act will be expected to "act in accordance" with the code rather than "have regard to it". The skeleton admissions code makes clear at paragraph 2 that it,
	"sets out statutory (i.e. imposed by primary or secondary legislation) and other mandatory requirements imposed by this Code".
	According to that paragraph, chapter 1 of the skeleton code sets out,
	"admission practices and oversubscription criteria that must not be used in the allocation of school places and provides guidelines and requirements for fair admission arrangements".
	It is clear that this code is much stronger than the one made under existing legislation. It is also clear that the change in the status of the code was made to win the support of various rebel groups within the Labour Party.
	It was not a proposal contained within the White Paper. Paragraph 3.22 on page 46 of the White Paper states:
	"No one approach towards admissions will work in all circumstances. This is why we want to ensure that all self-governing schools ... are free to use the approach to fair admissions that they think will best meet their local circumstances, as long as it is compatible with the Admissions Code".
	The public face of government was consistent with the White Paper. All radio, television and newspaper interviews given by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State between the publication of the White Paper in October 2005 and the concession letter of 6 February this year categorically ruled out the code of practice having any more statutory compulsion than it had already. On 24 November, the then Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, said in another place that:
	"The code is established on a statutory basis, but there is discretion and flexibility in it to adapt admissions to meet the specific ends of a school and the pupils in the area".
	Asked by the then shadow Education Secretary, David Cameron, if she would rule out making the code of practice a statutory code, the then Secretary of State replied:
	"I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the code achieves its ends of ruling out selection by ability on its current statutory basis. He is confused—the code already operates on a statutory basis. Schools take it into account, and then the adjudicator, which is also statutory, can use its discretion to say whether the school has interpreted it correctly. Interpretation of the code, however, is very important for schools that want to create their own distinctive ethos".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/05;col. 1644.]
	The Prime Minister said at his press conference on 23 January:
	"I can't agree, for the reasons we have given on many occasions, that this code becomes statutory".
	The Government retreated in their 6 February letter to the Education and Skills Committee in which the then Minister said:
	"As you know it has always been our intention that the Code of Practice on admissions should have real force".
	The wording in Mr Justice Jackson's judgment in the London Oratory School case, which involved the governing body of that school and the schools adjudicator, shows how prescriptive the code can be. He said:
	"Let me first consider the statutory effect of the Code. Section 84(3) of the 1998 Act imposes an obligation, first on the Governors of the Oratory School and then on the Adjudicator 'to have regard to any relevant provisions of the Code'. The phrase 'to have regard to' means to take into account. It does not connote slavish obedience or deference on every occasion",
	which I suspect could reflect the new provisions.
	The code could evidently be incredibly restrictive. Indeed, the Bill's powers could be used to impose a single admissions criterion across the country. That is why we feel that if there must be a strengthened code, accompanying it should be a high level of parliamentary control embodied in the affirmative resolution procedure. However, our preferred solution would be to remove Clause 38 altogether. It is unnecessary.
	First, to impose the code with that additional strength requires us to anticipate all the varied decisions in which a school might find itself. We need to ensure that schools have sufficient flexibility to respond to local needs when setting up their arrangements. In relation to guidance for Clause 3 the Minister in another place stated:
	"When we are recommending good practice, it goes into guidance and it is for local bodies to take it into account sensibly in their local situations."—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 30/3/06; cols. 152-153.]
	Why should schools not have the power to tailor their admissions arrangements to local circumstances? I suspect that the furore surrounding admissions reflects a left-wing preoccupation with admissions rather than with standards. The government rationale for the alteration has not been consistent. The letter of 6 February to the Education and Skills Select Committee stated that the change was prompted by "recent legal judgments" that,
	"may have weakened the perceived force of the Code".
	But that legal judgment had occurred before the publication of the White Paper. In fact, the London Oratory School case was decided in December 2004, some 10 months before the publication of the White Paper. Had the Government truly intended to strengthen the code, they had months in which to make their intentions clear. The fact that they did so only when threatened with a rebellion inside their own party is extremely telling. The words in the White Paper belie the Government's real stance:
	"We recognise that no form of admissions arrangements can increase the number of places at an oversubscribed school. This is why we are continuing to increase the number of good schools and the number of places in good schools".
	Our preoccupation should be with the creation of more good school places, not the shifting of one set of children out of a good school and replacing them with another. That merely substitutes one injustice with another. The disparity in our education system is caused by a lack of good school places, not in the fact that one school might have slightly different admissions policies.
	I turn to the skeleton code. It is a pity that we were not presented with a more detailed example. However, we are satisfied that it goes no further than the draft code that was withdrawn last year. The code recognises that first preference first is poor practice. That is welcome, as first preference first schemes often lead to parents choosing schools tactically rather than on the basis of genuine preference, particularly where there are grammar schools in an area. If specialist schools decide to select 10 per cent of their intake by aptitude, it will be even more important that the decision is taken on the basis of the fairer equal preferences system.
	I have concerns with some aspects of the code. It continues to outlaw making admission conditional on signing a home school contract, an issue on which I hope to speak later. I am concerned also about the less technical wording of the part of the skeleton code concerning social fairness. The code states at paragraph 1.27:
	"Admission authorities should analyse information about their intakes, and where possible their applicants, to find out whether they attract a wide range of families or whether their school fails to attract all sections of local communities".
	I should like the Minister to reassure me that that will not impose a bureaucratic burden on schools. It is important that schools do not discriminate in their admissions on irrelevant grounds. However, since schools are legally forbidden from selecting on the basis of social background or income, there is a risk that schools might make great efforts to ensure a fair intake without any assurance that they will be successful. I am grateful to have been able to place these matters on record. Our amendment would ensure that the new code of admissions was subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We on these Benches consider that to be a necessary process for ensuring that schools are not subject to undue burdens.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 176, 177 and 178 on banding. I will return briefly to an issue raised by my honourable friend Nick Gibb MP in another place. I will not go into it again in great detail as I hope that having returned with a slightly altered amendment the Government will be minded to accept this one in your Lordships' House, having been sympathetic to the principle in another place.
	I set out the position from these Benches at Second Reading. I firmly believe that banding is nothing more than streaming outside the school gates. I believe that in its purest form it leads to social engineering and can seriously fetter parents' choice of schools. As such, it goes in principle against the driving forces of this Bill. However, that is the principle of banding in its purest form. While in principle it poses serious problems, in practice it can be shown to work. CTCs, especially the Thomas Telford school, benefit hugely from using banding in conjunction and, as such, I would not wish to fetter the choice of schools to use banding as a method of selection.
	These amendments make it necessary for local education authorities that are admission authorities to get the consent of governing bodies when introducing all forms of banding. As currently drafted, Clause 49 provides for governing body consent only to the new form of banding that is introduced by new Section 101(1A) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Amendment No. 176 is a technical amendment that ensures that banding can be introduced only with the consent of governing bodies when they are not their own admissions authorities. Amendment No. 177 is a clarificatory amendment to ensure that consent to banding is necessary only when first introduced rather than every year that the admission arrangements are determined. I beg to move.

Lord Adonis: I begin on a consensual note, as I always seek to do. We are happy to accept Amendments Nos. 176 to 178 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I am glad that she has moved somewhat in her analysis of banding to see that it can be a beneficial system over subscription criteria in certain circumstances when schools want to ensure a genuinely comprehensive intake. We agree that it should be done with the consent of governing bodies and the amendments that she moved would give it that effect, and we are happy to accept them.
	Amendments Nos. 175 and 263 stand in my name and relate to partial selection. We do not think that we can go so far as the Liberal Democrat amendments, which would ban partial selection entirely without a process of adjudication, but we believe that when the adjudicator has already decided to reduce the proportion of people selected or to remove selective arrangements, it should not be possible for schools to seek to restore the original level of selection in the following period. It was not our intention that schools should be able to seek to restore original selections or partial selection. Our amendments would mean that if the adjudicator or the National Assembly for Wales made a decision to reduce the proportion of children selected by a school with pre-existing selection, that school could not later return to 1997-98 levels of partial selection. The same restriction would apply if an admission authority voluntarily decided to reduce the proportion of children selected.
	On Amendment No. 143A proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, we do not believe that it is necessary to amend legislation to prevent academies or CTCs from introducing selection by ability. Academies are already required to be fully inclusive schools and to comply with the school admissions code and admissions law, which is a more stringent set of obligations than currently apply to maintained schools. They are obliged to do so by the funding agreements that are approved by the Secretary of State. CTCs were established on the basis that they must admit children of all abilities, and they achieve that by pupil banding. Similarly, academies are not allowed to conduct interviews and the remaining CTCs, most of which are moving to academy status, will comply with that requirement by consensual change to their funding agreements.
	On the vexed issue of selection by aptitude, which the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, would also affect, I shall answer in two parts. At the moment, the prescribed subjects for selection of up to 10 per cent of intake by aptitude are PE or sports, the performing arts, visual arts, modern foreign languages, design and technology and information technology. When the Select Committee looked at that issue, it recommended that we removed design and technology and information technology from that list. We have agreed that we will do so on the grounds that we now believe that these subjects are areas of expertise which ought to be available in all schools. It is crucial to understand that the reason why we permit selection by aptitude is not simply because it is possible to do so—one could select by aptitude in a wide range of subjects—but also because of the access this gives to a wide range of provision in schools that will be particularly tailored or enhanced for that area. The three areas in which we still intend to allow it—PE and sport, performing and visual arts and modern foreign languages—are those where specialist schools are expected to make enhanced provision as a part of being a specialist institution. For example, modern foreign language specialist schools will typically offer a wider range of languages, including minority languages and sometimes Mandarin Chinese and Russian. These are languages which, with the best will in the world, are not going to be generally available. To have a truly comprehensive system, it is right that where schools can offer an enhanced provision which could not be part of the normal expectation of what a school can provide, parents and pupils should have access to it where the school thinks it is desirable.
	The noble Baroness asked me for the number of schools using the 10 per cent selection provision. While I do not have the precise figure because I am not sure that we are aware of it, it is not a large number. But it is of immense value to some schools for the reasons I have given. Again, we intend that design and technology and information technology should not be included in the list for schools seeking to use the 10 per cent selection in the future, and we will consult on and revise the regulations in respect of aptitude selection at the same time as we consult on the school admissions code.
	Turning to interviews for entry into sixth forms and to assess religious commitment covered by Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I think that we have rehearsed our position on interviews so often that I hesitate to go through it again at just before midnight. Perhaps I may make two brief points. First, I should stress that the faith communities themselves—the last area in which interviewing was allowed—had reached a position where they wished to end interviewing as an admissions criterion. Only a very small number of schools were still doing it by the time we announced that we would seek to end this practice in primary legislation, and the faith communities have supported us. Secondly, we do not believe it should be any more necessary for schools to interview prospective candidates for entry to the sixth form than it is for entry into any other form. The use of, for example, minimum attainment requirements at GCSE level, as many schools now providing sixth form education currently use, or of other over-subscription criteria should be more than adequate to offer year 12 places in an objective and impartial way rather than relying on subjective interviewing.
	In response to Amendments Nos. 144 and 145A moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, requiring an affirmative resolution of each House rather than the more usual negative procedure, we have already laid a skeleton school admissions code before your Lordships and we will publish a draft of the full code in September, allowing for full consultation and debate in the education community and with noble Lords.
	Home-school agreements are specifically prohibited from being linked to school admissions processes and we do not believe it is right to change that, even though we think that the agreements can have value. Given that, we do not support Amendment No. 144. We believe that admission to a school should not be contingent on promises of good behaviour or any other judgments about past behaviour, and while we encourage schools to meet with parents to discuss home-school agreements, this must not be an interview to determine whether a child should be admitted to a school, but an opportunity to discuss the school's policies and the role of parents in supporting their child as a member of the school.
	Finally, on the interesting point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about the anonymisation of admission applications covered by AmendmentNo. 145, we believe that over time the issues around this should be considered. Looking at IT systems in their current state and the obligations this would impose, it would be a step too far to take immediately. There is also the practical issue of how to deal with siblings under anonymised systems which we have not yet been able to get our mind around. While we do not think this is something that can be done now, if we want to get to a system where it is truly criteria and no other factor weighing in the allocation of places to children, clearly there is something to be said for those arrangements. I know that this links with an amendment dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which he will move at what I hope is a better hour of the day, in respect of over-subscription criteria which use random allocation rather than proximity or banding. That is an oversubscription criterion that the new school admissions code will make permissible. In fact, only a tiny number of schools use it at the moment. It is widely used, for example, in the United States for charter schools. There is something to be said for it since it is manifestly fair, but it would involve quite a big departure from existing admissions practices in this country, which are largely governed by proximity. While we wish to make it possible, we do not think that it can be done against the wishes of schools. It would obviously impact on provision in a particular area, so it would have to be done in some form of geographical community, and it would need to be considered very carefully.

Lord Lucas: I hope from what the noble Lord said that we are about to be showered with some good news that this might be the sort of time that we are heading home. Before that, I ask him for some further good news, that it will also under the school admissions code become illegal for a school to take into account the position in the ranking of parental preferences in which that school has been placed. As he knows, I very much feel that schools that say, "We will not let you in unless you place us first on the list", are causing a serious problem. My noble friend referred to that. I do not see it in the existing draft of the code; perhaps I am just missing it. Secondly, will the criteria in paragraph 133 of the draft code apply to Church schools? They are the main offenders under the criteria for socially selective systems. I would be delighted if they were no longer able to operate as they have been.

Lord Adonis: Is the noble Lord talking about paragraph 133 of the draft code?

Lord Lucas: Yes.

Lord Adonis: In respect of the noble Lord's first point, while we intend to say that "first preference first" systems are poor practice, we do not intend to rule them out entirely. This will be a matter for the adjudicators to decide. In point of fact though, adjudicators have largely ruled against such admissions criteria where they have been used. We would expect that trend, if I can put it that way, to continue and to be strengthened by the new code.

Baroness Buscombe: Although I am disappointed by the Minister's response to my Amendments Nos. 144 and 146, I am very pleased with his agreement to accept our Amendments Nos. 176, 177 and 178. I am extremely grateful to the Minister.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am pleased that the Minister is going to look kindly on the concept of anonymisation, which is an important principle, and I am glad that he is prepared to look at it at length and consider ways of introducing it.
	In relation to the point about academies and city technology colleges, I take on board what the Minister said. Indeed, I predicted that he would tell me that all these restrictions applied to the academies, city technology colleges and city colleges of technology for the arts. If that is the case, why are they always excluded from the Bill? Why are they not included in the Bill? It would make a lot of sense for them to be included. The Minister is right in saying that the draft code has been issued and that there will be plenty of opportunity for discussion and consultation on the draft code, but it is a very different issue from that of having affirmative resolution for both Houses as distinct from leaving it to negative resolution. If the code is to be mandatory, there is some point in the position that it should be under the affirmative resolution procedure. However, at this very late hour, it is time to withdraw the amendment. We can come back to it at a later stage if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 143B and 143C not moved.]
	Clause 37 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 144 and 144A not moved.]
	Clause 38 [Code for school admissions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 145 and 145A not moved.]
	Clause 38 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 146 and 146A not moved.]

Baroness Crawley: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Compensation Bill [HL]

The Bill was returned from the Commons on17 July with amendments; the Commons amendments were printed pursuant to Standing Order 51(2).

Health Bill

The Bill was returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
	House adjourned at five minutes past midnight.